Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge with voluntary caregiver. Cool Hand Luke 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carers

Carers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

WP:NOT a dictionary; possibly merge with Care. Current content of article reads like a government info leaflet. Walton monarchist89 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with voluntary caregiver. There's some interesting and pertinent information there; it's perhaps better off in the extensive VC article that already exists. DanielEng 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about this - its once again a question of different vocabularies both sides of the Atlantic - I have been a carer for 15 years but would never have found voluntary caregiver without my own stub being nominated immediately for deletion, which hasnt happened to me before and is a bit scary ;-) voluntary caregiver is a purely American term, the British equivalent is "carer" - or more controversially "informal carer" but "carers" is again slightly different - used very commonly in the UK to define the range of organisations and legislation affecting the individual "voluntary caregiver" Anyway, it's a huge and complex subject and each country has very different legislation and cicumstances. Why not have a single short generic article , and then separate links to articles for UK Carers, US Voluntary Caregivers etc etc? Excalibur 10:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge. Voluntary caregiver should be merged into this article, which should be renamed to Carer. The reason that I'm advocating it be merged this way and not the other way round is that a google search for [ carer] returns 1,200,000 hits, while [ "voluntary caregiver] only returns 359. I've also sourced the article. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; merge anything of value into Voluntary caregiver. I'm not really confident about the google test above, particularly what some of those hits for "carer" might really be for. Once you get past a certain number of ghits, the rest are really questionable; however, I have no real strong opposition to merging into carer. Maybe those two articles are ripe for merging themselves, but that's another discussion elsewhere. Agent 86 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to me it would be better to merge both this and voluntary caregiver into Carer - better to use the singular form, for the sake of clarity. Even when merging, the content of the article needs a substantial rewrite - as I said, it's mainly text lifted verbatim from a government info leaflet. Walton monarchist89 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I like to think I have a fairly massive vocabulary, but I've never heard the word "carer" before. If it's a Britishism (as it seems to be) perhaps there's a more international term for the same concept that this can be merged/redirected to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge this article and Voluntary caregiver to a new article with a more neutral name. Then Redirect the two terms to the new article. Messy, but the best way to provide an NPOV that covers both terms. I would suggest Caregiver as the final article name, with both articles redirected to that, and a section noting the geographical difference. I'd rather avoid the kind of skirmish that Petrol/Gasoline has caused! -- Kesh 04:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Darnit. There's a disambiguation page at Caregiver. Can anyone else think of another term that would work? -- Kesh 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I like this idea very much, and agree that it would prevent any possible POV issues. How about naming the article simply Carer/Voluntary Caregiver? It's admittedly an unwieldly name but it would cover both bases. I never have heard the term 'carer' used anywhere myself, and it seems that there's too much of a international divide to use the words interchangeably. DanielEng 12:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm out of my depth on this one - happy to leave it to more experienced editors.I agree the current article is too short, but it was just a quick attempt to get the ball rolling - there's a huge amount of potentially useful and encyclopaedic information that will be added as soon as concensus has been reached on this issue.Excalibur 12:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Carers : "Carers are non-professional people who take care of patients at home. Carers can be relatives of the sick person or other volunteers. They usually give help or support to relatives or friends because of long-term physical or mental ill-health or disability, or problems related to old age. As they deal with serious matters and under difficult circumstances, carers need particular attention from national and regional authorities to help them with their tasks. In general, to carry out their duties smoothly and efficiently they require flexible working time and financial support."

Also see: http://www.internationalcarers.org/

International Alliance of Carers Organizations New International Caregiver Organization Launched On February 27, 2004, the International Alliance of Carers Organizations (IACO) was launched by family caregiving organizations from Australia, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the US. The mission of the organization is three-fold:

to increase visibility of family caregiving across the lifespan as an international issue; to promote the sharing of best practices in caregiving programs between countries; and to encourage and provide assistance to countries interested in developing family carer organizations. IACO will be headquartered in London; seed money has been provided by Pfizer US. Initial IACO projects will include promotion of a United Nations Day for Carers and a presentation on the IACO as part of a half-day workshop at the International Federation on Aging conference in Singapore on August 4, 2004. National family carer organizations in all countries are encouraged to join the alliance.Excalibur 12:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I think on reflection "carer" might be better than "carers" - By way of a precedent, I note that the entry for refugees is redirected into refugee

so there seems to be an inbuilt preference for the singular when referring to a whole category of people.Excalibur 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge with Voluntary caregiver. Carer is currently a redirect to care, a disambig page, so I think that should be merged with voluntary caregiver, too. I don't see a NPOV problem with "Voluntary caregiver", but maybe those who do could explain. I'd object to keeping it "carer" because I suspect it's a neologism created to send a specific message and not in especially wide use (my uneducated guess). A slash in the title won't work since that would create a subpage (but you could use parentheses instead). Excalibur, you're right that the singular is preferred where possible under naming conventions. delldot | talk 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the neologism argument - there are a lot of wiki entries a great deal more neological than "care" and "carers" which have been used for well over a quarter of a century and are now enshrined in law. According to Carers UK website, the chronology is as follows:

1965 National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants formed. 1976 Invalid Care Allowance introduced - the first benefit for carers and still the only benefit specifically for carers. 1978 Introduction of Home Responsibilities Protection to protect carers’basic state pension 1981 Association of Carers formed Excalibur 17:40, 30 January 2007 (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.