Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery amount


 * 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 redirect to Loss given default. Consensus is to redirect to Loss given default (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 21:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Recovery amount

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The quantity is more commonly known as the recovery rate in the financial risk industry. I cannot find RS using recovery amount as anything more than a vague synonym, so cannot recommend a redirect here. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bankruptcy, where the concept comes into play.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Loss given default or Bankruptcy. This is such an obscure topic that it makes no sense to have its own stub. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a dictionary. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect but to Loss given default, not Bankruptcy-, which is much too broad an article and does not I think actually provide any information on the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.