Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace Safety & Health Council


 * 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 keep and move. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹   20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Workplace Safety & Health Council

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (update: probably with move/retitle to broaden topic, per discussion below-d) Organization seems legitimate and important.  Not sure what animal it is, a charitable nonprofit or an industry association or what.  Better for the world that Singapore is advancing its workplace safety management, rather than letting New York City-style and Bangladesh-style fires take down shirtwaist garment workers.  Fine to add more references and explain context better, e.g. to link to Singapore legislation such as here.  "Article created by wp:SPA" is not a valid article deletion reason.  Article has stood for many years, there is not an active promotional activity going on.  And back many years ago it looks like there were 2 main editors.  No deletion rationale, seems important:  Keep. -- do  ncr  am  01:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article is essentially unsourced, and the bill cited does not mention this organization. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I believe the "Workplace Safety and Health Act" of 2007, which I cited, authorizes statutory powers for enforcement of workplace safety in Singapore, which powers were delegated/given to the Workplace Safety & Health Council, perhaps subsequently, not in the bill itself. The Council had not been named that in 2007.  It was given that name later, i guess.  This topic seems basic to understanding workplace safety laws and system in Singapore.  I'm sorry that I don't follow all the details of how the Council got authority, but I am really rather sure that it is covered in Chinese language sources and/or English language sources and is well-documented. -- do  ncr  am  03:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - I suspect this the same entity allowed for by the legislation cited. That said, primary sources like bills and acts are passed every day by the hundreds of thousands by various parliaments and assemblies. There are many thousands of councils, agencies, departments and other statutory bodies established by legislation. That they are established by legislation is no indication of notability. What we require is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If the entity is indeed important then we require independent sources stating as much (or at least suggesting it). I agree that such sources might exist in languages other than English. But given the existence of many, many, many thousands of such statutory entities without said coverage, probability is not sufficiently high enough for me to be as "sure" as my learned colleague that such coverage is guaranteed to exist in this instance. Without such coverage being evident, I can't see that this meets our inclusion criteria.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (or merge; I'm always up for a good merge target). They're mentioned in books like this one and Google Scholar finds some interesting bits, especially if you spell out the name.  User:Doncram, if you want to improve the article, then you might start with this one, and then see this one about their asbestos initiative.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't strongly disagree but a number of the authors of that paper (the asbestos one) are on the council itself - it's hardly independent coverage of the subject; committee members writing about the work of their committee. Such is the nature of councils like this - committee members are often the experts in their field, and we can expect some of those experts to have authored related academic work. But my bigger concern would be that away from the committee members themselves, it is the Ministry of Manpower (with which the council works) that has actually received credit for that program - .  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, some of those committee members have received coverage (similar to the above) and some have been extensively cited in their own right. It may be that a number of them qualify for inclusion here in their own right. The notability of committee members doesn't help the council, but they are no less deserving than US, UK or Australian academics.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: How about Keep with intention to move to Workplace safety and health in Singapore or other more general title?  Linking in with general Occupational safety and health which covers many countries but not yet Singapore.  This would address need to include "Singapore" somewhere in title of existing article, already.  This would accommodate encyclopedia-appropriate general coverage of topic, with historical perspective, including what seems to me to be exceptionally good science-based initiatives on workplace safety and health in Singapore (of the council and of the Ministry of Manpower).  There in fact seems to be academic reliable sources on the history of the topic, such as
 * "Building and Sustainability Controls in Singapore: A Journey in Time", by S.P. Low, in Procedia Engineering Volume 20, 2011, Pages 22–40, a Sciencedirect-provided source identified by WhatamIdoing (thanks!)
 * "Legislative and regulatory control of construction in Singapore" Unibeam, XIV p (1985), pp. p.19–p.31, S.P. Low, cited in that Procedia Engineering article
 * and there is news coverage of topic such as
 * The WSH 2018 program already cited in the current council article, and covered by the Ministry of Manpower at here, which has gotten external news coverage.
 * Singapore Cracks Down on Crane Operators
 * Channel News Asia coverage of a construction industry safety initiative, along with other news coverage of that, and Ministry of Manpower's report Ministry of Manpower's report on construction safety
 * Links to the notable committee members or other health & safety academics in Singapore as noted by Stalwart111.
 * The Malayan Insider coverage of sustainability reporting of SGX Singapore stock exchange companies...which notes "At the Singapore Compact CSR (corporate social responsibility) Summit held on October 17, SGX chief executive Magnus Bocker said the bourse will be mandating that all listed companies publish sustainability reports in a 'comply or explain' approach" and "As Bocker puts it, Singapore is very good in terms of financial reporting and governance. Sustainability reporting can be viewed as taking it to a higher level."
 * and more of whatamIdoing-suggested links to be explored,
 * and more to be found, try:
 * I was called back by ping from here, and I appreciate the cooperative tone and information sharing of Stalwart111 and WhatamIdoing. The asbestos article mentioned above cites a Singapore paper "Improving WSH Management Singapore", which I find now located at https://www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/2014/Improving_WSH_Management_Singapore.pdf which gives a good overview of strategies.  Note also this more general revised article would also integrate/link with Wikipedia's isolated article (tagged as isolated/unintegrated since 2012) on Singapore's Workplace Safety and Health Act.  I think all this would be helpful, and the current article's over-focus on the organization of the council itself could be reduced.  Win - win - win?  -- do  ncr  am  13:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. That Singapore is a regional leader, at least, probably can be documented.  Here is example of Philippines' news coverage of their lesser Health & safety regulation, comparing Philippines' status negatively relative to Singapore standards. -- do  ncr  am  13:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd support a move to Workplace safety and health in Singapore. I don't think the council is notable but the subject, more broadly, seems to be notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , did you see this "keep and rename" proposal? czar ⨹   18:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that sounds like a good idea. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2014 (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.