Talk:Time value of money: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== A candidate for deletion? == | |||
The intellectual level of this article seems to be more suitable for schoolchildren than for the undergraduate/graduate reader that Citizendium is intended to serve. It gives the misleading impression that the time value of money can be explained by a tautology and some elementary algebra. I am inclined to ask for its deletion on the grounds that it is duplicated by the [[discount rate]] article which is of a higher standard. Does anyone disagree? [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
: Moreover, it is a barely changed WP import. However, deletion is not necessary. It can be blanked (preserving the history). amd link to discount rate until (perhaps) a better article is written. I'll do the blanking which could easily be reverted. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: Thanks [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:32, 20 January 2010
A candidate for deletion?
The intellectual level of this article seems to be more suitable for schoolchildren than for the undergraduate/graduate reader that Citizendium is intended to serve. It gives the misleading impression that the time value of money can be explained by a tautology and some elementary algebra. I am inclined to ask for its deletion on the grounds that it is duplicated by the discount rate article which is of a higher standard. Does anyone disagree? Nick Gardner 07:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Moreover, it is a barely changed WP import. However, deletion is not necessary. It can be blanked (preserving the history). amd link to discount rate until (perhaps) a better article is written. I'll do the blanking which could easily be reverted. --Peter Schmitt 00:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick Gardner 21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)