Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-signing

Co-signing was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Isn't properly explained and much of the article is a dictionary definition. The remaining "content" is a Biblical reference, which shouldn't be the focus of a stub about legal documentation authorizations. The topic is of dubious encyclopedic value. - Bumm13 08:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Bumm13 08:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Could become a legitimate article. The biblical reference is strange, but appropriate. Definitely needs some work. -- Scott Burley 08:49, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep At moment (at time of writting) it lacks many details and is in need of expansion - that can be done by Wikipedians, what is your pain is someone elses pleasure. The 'legal documentation authorizations' (like bumm13 said) lacks many content that is revelant to nowadays whilst the Bibical contents has suprsingly more content. It is not suprising that the majority part of the article relates to the Bible scriptures. And you are trying to VFD an act which is not endorsed by the Bible, thus trying to an article which can be of religious value. Take away the fact it was created by an anonymous user, as he or she only just started the article without any valuable (if not any) content only just the word 'Co-signing on the page'. So base you decision on the potential of it turning into an informative article that can be expanded. The explanation (at time of writing) is as clear as it gets "To be responsible for another persons debt" is the most clearest explanation that a person can think of, it is a both concise and professional way to start an potential full Wikipedia article. Saying that much of the dictionary article is about a dictionary definition may be true, but yes, after all it IS a stub and a stub should contain at least a definition of what the article is about. And that article has done that. It qualifies as a normal stub... squash 09:06, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if it has been significantly expanded before the end of it's run on VfD. Currently this is a useless stub, serving only to convey some pointless biblical trivia. If it doesn't get expanded in the next week, then delete this for now. ~leif ☺ _HELO 09:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Again, the topic might be worthwhile, but the article needs no preservation. What in the current article needs to be preserved? Delete the article. If someone else wishes to write a new article on the subject, then he or she can get credit. Geogre 14:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Expansion: I should have been more precise. The current article is simply a statement that co-signing on loans is forbidden by the Bible. That's all. I do not see any reason to preserve that in the article history. As for a discussion of co-signatures and credit, I'm all for it. I don't think, however, that "co-signing" is the natural title of such an article. Therefore, we'd be looking at a move before proceeding. Why do all that, when the logical solution is for those who are knowledgeable about financial topics to create a discussion, perhaps as a section of credit (anyone looked there to see if the topic is already covered?), and then, if we really, really want to tell everyone in the world that the Bible says that it's prohibited, we can merge and redirect there. When it comes to the Bible, all credit is sinful to Christians. Jesus was very precise about not lending at interest. Geogre 18:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Forward to WP:RFE. A perfectly legitimate topic within banking and in common life experiences that is worth coverage. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 19:46, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I removed the biblical quote, someone with a legal background should start on this article. The topic is definitely encyclopedic, even if the article is not (yet). --Improv 19:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate topic that has a good chance of being expanded into a decent article. I think it should be moved to Cosigning, AHD4 doesn't spell it with a hyphen. Personally I'd put the Biblical reference back—assuming it checks out—but maybe it would be better to wait until we have more about cosigning in modern secular law. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, the article has definate potential for expansion. I added a bit of info on when co-signing may be asked for, and readded the bible reference, after correcting it (co-signing isn't prohibited, but it is viewed negatively) [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 19:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I believe the term they're looking for here is "guarantee", the person performing the act said to be the "guarantor". At least, that's the impression I got when talking to some experts in housing law about this very thing last week (see? those useless tidbits of information you get from people do come in useful :-) Chris 17:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• The term "guarantee" is indeed used in this context, but is ambiguous, since "guarantee" is also used in the sense of warranty where no third party is involved. The unambiguous legal term (at least in U.S. law) is surety or suretyship. The structure I suggest is: Create the article at one of those titles, incorporating the material from Co-signing and from Surety bond; have redirects at those titles. An article on suretyship would logically devote most of its space to legal and financial aspects, but I wouldn't object to the mention of Biblical or other religious opinions on this type of arrangement. JamesMLane 20:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or find a good place to merge. —siroχo 20:57, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, relevant, factually accurate, verifiable. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, this is just a stub, and can be easily expanded. -- 67.20.29.3 00:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.