Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual History

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 redirect to visual culture. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual History[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a very poorly translated version of an article on the French Wikipedia here: [1]. As it now stands, it is almost incomprehensible in English, suggestive of a machine translation, unencyclopedic and of little use to an English Wikipedia reader Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:TNT? Google searches for whatever the French (and German) articles are talking about are heavily screened in English by the apparent fact that a "visual history" is used to describe a popular history book in which historical images or illustrations predominate and in which the text may be largely confined to captions. I personally would be hard-pressed to find scholarly description of this, however. It's conversely unclear whether the French topic actually has the corresponding name in English; the lack of JSTOR hits suggests that it is named something else. I'm inclined to delete the existing text entirely but I'm not sure about replacing it with something else. Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If the subject is notable in French, it should be notable in English. However, I would not beable tio sort it out. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be fine, if it were actually called this in English. I have yet to find any evidence that it is. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google translate seems to think that the French version is about the history of the image or of all things visual, in which case maybe some of this content could be stuffed into a History section of the Image article. If it could be made coherent. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following argument appears to be a keep from the article's talk page Visual History: "I have spoken with other students. Visual History is a very serious article. The main question is the translation. It would be a real mistake to delete this article: imagine, if wikipedia was used in the 1930s, you had deleted the Ecole des Annales article, just because the translation was bad? English speaking users of our Free Encyclopedia must really know about these news researches for a global history of images. So, we feel in fact that the main question is, with your help, to improve the translation in English. malexart87.231.94.89 (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)" — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual History (or Histiconologia) is in fact the right name. This is the new global History of all visual matters made by humankind from Prehistory. That means objects, arts, images, architectures, landscapes... You cannot call it History of Images or History of Arts. So, you really should keep the name. It is useful in fact and right. argemedia87.231.94.89 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe the author distinguishes between the history of images and human history as evidenced by art; perhaps he intends the latter to be the article's subject. While this may be a legitimate historical concept, the given sources do not support this idea, instead suggesting original synthesis. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visual culture which is the English top-level article for visual studies. Create a subsection translated from the German version which is succinct.[2] The French article is hopelessly long and detailed without adequate secondary sourcing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Green Cardamom's logical suggestion above. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Visual History but change the name: History of Visual Culture[edit]

I do agree with argemedia: "I am really sorry to say that to delete or to redirect Visual History would be a historical mistake for our common Encyclopedia. Visual History is a new science. Of course, it deals with Visual Culture, but it is a History of this Visual Culture, as you have a general History, a History of Art or Arts, a History of Medias, a History of Images. This History of Visual Culture is a global history of all visual matters : images, objects, arts, architectures, landscapes... It has been founded with the World Dictionnary of Images (in fact, not only images, but all aspects of visual culture from Prehistory) written by 475 authors from all over the World (publisher : Nouveau Monde). Nevertheless there is a problem with the name in English, because Visual History could mean also a way to show History through various images. So, my suggestion is to keep it but to change the name in order to make it more clear for everybody in English: History of Visual Culture. I may do this if everybody agree. argemedia" malexartMalexart (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted your comment so that it doesn't affect the AfD template. Also, please don't take any action regarding the article until the AfD is resolved. In cases like this, an administrator must determine consensus and then close the AfD. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many thanks. malexartMalexart (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as suggested, but do not keep in the current unreadable state. No objection to a later competent and sourced recreation. Sandstein 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.