Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Backs

: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 no consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 03:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Better Backs]]=

:{{la|Better Backs}} ([{{fullurl:Better Backs|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Backs}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

non-notable campaign of the UK Health and Safety Executive. ninety:one 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, very little to write about this, and nobody will remember it in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can provide independent sources giving significant coverage of the campaign. Nuttah (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick Google indicates plenty of evidence of third party bodies making a fuss of it, esp. local govt etc, e.g. ([http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/business/safety/campaigns/backs]). --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment. That's why I said independent. Local authorities, along with the HSE, are responsible for instruction and enforcement of health and safety and are not independent. Nuttah (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Oh come on. They're independent of the HSE. If I published advice on back care, local authorities wouldn't promote it. The fact that they promote the campaign is proof of its importance and therefore notability. They were under no statutory obligation to join or promote the campaign (it's an awareness campaign, not legally binding guidance), which is why you won't find every l.a. promoting it. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Oh come on indeed. For a division of responsibility see [http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/EnvHealth/safety/hselocal.htm]. Local authorities work in conjunction with the HSE and are legally responsible for health and safety instruction and enforcement in pretty much any business that is in the 'service sector'. In no means, shape or form are they independent and the link you provide is a classic example of them carrying out their responsibility. Nuttah (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::They had no responsibility to promote a publicity campaign for the HSE. They do have responsibility to apply guidance or legal requirements from HSE. That's an important distinction - and it's why many local authorities didn't promote the campaign. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::FFS, I love Wiki lawyers who haven't a fucking clue what they are on about. [http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/nr/moderngov/Published/C00000558/M00004760/AI00024306/$HSEStatementofIntentApp1.docA.ps.pdf Have a read]. Nuttah (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Your incivility is unbecoming, unnecessary, unhelpful and a stack of other things beginning with "un". --Dweller (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Try these: [http://www2.northampton.ac.uk/portal/page/portal/humanresources1/home/ohs/betterbacks], [http://www.publicservice.co.uk/article.asp?publication=&id=189&content_name=Construction&article=4693], [http://www.facoccmed.ac.uk/news/index.jsp?ref=106], [http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=249&listitemid=6520]. I've got bored on [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=00k&pwst=1&q=better+backs&start=40&sa=N page 5 of the Google hits]. Someone else is welcome to peruse the next dozen or two. :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

::TBH none of this is independent. HSE like tax is a legal requirement and employers are required to distribute this. The campaign being filtered down is no more notable than taxation changes filtering down through levels. Tax changes, like the recent 20% debacle, become notable when they are covered in a way that is not a legal requirement such as this [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/mar/22/budget2007.money2 Guardian] article. That is what is needed for this article, coverage because the topic is notable, not web pages set up because an employer has to. Nuttah (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::So if every employer in the country was saying "x", x would not be notable? Anyway, that's just a silly debating point, because 4,5 and 6 above are not employers speaking. --Dweller (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Dweller shows plenty of sources. RogueNinjatalk 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Article can be verified, which is the key. Currently in poor state, but improvable. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2008 (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.