The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Gazimoff 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InEfficient market hypothesis[edit]

InEfficient market hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

original research, essay. Unreferenced. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research and an attempt to create a neologism antonymically from an established term. Ben Kidwell (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is a blatant soap box for a neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Week Keep It is indeed a common usage in the financial markets and do throw up a lot of results in google scholar. Although the article does look like WP:OR, I guess it can be developed to a good article, given some time to do so
trakesht (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The information can be just added to efficient markets and do not deserve a separate article :)
  trakesht (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to market failure, a possible redirect candidate but for the malformed title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, original research. GlassCobra 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.