Revision as of 17:16, 1 December 2011 editJbmurray (talk | contribs)Administrators20,564 edits →File:Hugo Chávez (1992 Coup Surrender).jpg: which 100 people?← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:19, 1 December 2011 edit undoDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →File:Hugo Chávez (1992 Coup Surrender).jpgNext edit → | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
***All the keepers could muster was "I think its notable", of a picture of a guy giving a press conference. The ''event'' may have been historic, but that doesn't necessarily confer historicity onto an image of the event. Put this image in front of 100 people and 99 of them will not have the slightest idea as to the context. ] (]) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | ***All the keepers could muster was "I think its notable", of a picture of a guy giving a press conference. The ''event'' may have been historic, but that doesn't necessarily confer historicity onto an image of the event. Put this image in front of 100 people and 99 of them will not have the slightest idea as to the context. ] (]) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
****Well, the fact that the event was historic is a start, and should have been taken into account. As to whether the image itself is iconic, you're showing your cultural blinders: put this image in front of 100 Venezuelans, indeed 100 Latin Americans, and they will instantly grasp its significance. --] (] • ]) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | ****Well, the fact that the event was historic is a start, and should have been taken into account. As to whether the image itself is iconic, you're showing your cultural blinders: put this image in front of 100 Venezuelans, indeed 100 Latin Americans, and they will instantly grasp its significance. --] (] • ]) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
***** I dispute this. Do I have to take your word for how well-known this image is for Latin Americans, or can I read something about the image somewhere? Would you point me to such sources? --] 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
====]==== | ====]==== |
Revision as of 17:19, 1 December 2011
< 2011 November 30 Deletion review archives: 2011 December 2011 December 2 >1 December 2011
File:Hugo Chávez (1992 Coup Surrender).jpg
- File:Hugo Chávez (1992 Coup Surrender).jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This is a historic image in both senses outlined by WP:HISTORIC. It documents a historic event: Hugo Chávez's appearance on TV at the end of the failed 1992 coup attempt. But it is also an image that has iconic resonance in itself. It is the moment at which Chávez burst onto public consciousness: he is here seen giving the brief speech in which he said his efforts to transform the Venezuelan state were halted "for now" ("por ahora"). This phrase subsequently resonated in Venezuelan politics, and to some extent the country is still living with its consequences. This image is every bit as iconic as (say) the image of Chamberlain's coming down from the plane to announce "peace in our time." The argument used by damiens.rtf against the image is extraordinarily misleading. Moreover, the discussion's close is strange: three very brief "delete" votes (one of which was simply "per nom," the other of which was the--simply incorrect--"just a generic guy at a mic"), versus two much more passionately and lengthily argued "keep" votes. I think that the close was a mistake. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- (And I see for what it's worth that the nominator has a history of rather acrimonious and controversial "carpet bombing" of FfDs. Here he seems to have taken an interest in a series of photographs of Hugo Chávez mostly uploaded by User:Caracas1830. But to delete this image is definitely going much too far. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC))
- Endorse. This is different from the previous DRV because in the present case, there was sufficient participation at the FFD and there was a genuine consensus to delete there. Fastily could not have decided otherwise than as he did.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Endorse - Consensus of the debate and strength of argument was read correctly. Nothing for DRV to do. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The strength of the argument? A misleading proposal in the first place, a "per nom," a factually incorrect statement ("generic guy") and then, as the strongest case, this: "I'd be hard pressed to make a case that the file could pass NFCC#8." Please! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- All the keepers could muster was "I think its notable", of a picture of a guy giving a press conference. The event may have been historic, but that doesn't necessarily confer historicity onto an image of the event. Put this image in front of 100 people and 99 of them will not have the slightest idea as to the context. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that the event was historic is a start, and should have been taken into account. As to whether the image itself is iconic, you're showing your cultural blinders: put this image in front of 100 Venezuelans, indeed 100 Latin Americans, and they will instantly grasp its significance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I dispute this. Do I have to take your word for how well-known this image is for Latin Americans, or can I read something about the image somewhere? Would you point me to such sources? --damiens.rf 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that the event was historic is a start, and should have been taken into account. As to whether the image itself is iconic, you're showing your cultural blinders: put this image in front of 100 Venezuelans, indeed 100 Latin Americans, and they will instantly grasp its significance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- All the keepers could muster was "I think its notable", of a picture of a guy giving a press conference. The event may have been historic, but that doesn't necessarily confer historicity onto an image of the event. Put this image in front of 100 people and 99 of them will not have the slightest idea as to the context. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- The strength of the argument? A misleading proposal in the first place, a "per nom," a factually incorrect statement ("generic guy") and then, as the strongest case, this: "I'd be hard pressed to make a case that the file could pass NFCC#8." Please! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Driving etiquette
The article was deleted by user Andyjsmith because, as he said "The material is fully covered elsewhere in wikipedia. I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as "driving etiquette" but if you think there is and you can prove it from reliable sourced then you should look at adding it to an existing article such as Traffic." My counter argument was "I do feel that your rash deletion was unjustified. You do have a point , but there is no mention of driving etiquette in the article Traffic, and although it was a quick stub that I wrote in a little while, I do think that the subject has a lot of potential and a lot of importance in it's own right" and "Driving etiquette at Google Books ()- the first source specifically. It seems like a well-documented concept. Also I think if it were an article, it would be a very useful article. I would imagine many people would find it useful to find a concise article on tdriving etiquette without having to fish out the info from various other parts of the internet". I don't mean to be (i can't remember the Wiki-term for it...) continually pushing the same view forward in the hopes that it will pass in a different forum. I do feel like I have been short-changed and would like a second opinion. -Coin945 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- He hasn't deleted it. He's redirected it. Try talking to him on the talk page or his talk page, and seek agreement to restore.—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, my mistake. Thanks :)