Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nukecloud.png
The data represented on this graph are not sourced. I have no clue where to find sources. As a stop gap, I've added a warning to the text that the data is unsourced. However, that warning keeps getting reverted in an edit war. The only alternative I see is deletion, unless the warning can be somehow made to stick. 108.20.176.55 20:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The plot is indeed a very nice plot, and I found myself engrossed in it. It's included on quite a number of pages all over the world, but as far as I can tell, nowhere else but on a few English pages is the diagram marked as "not sourced" (and only because I marked those pages). The problem is that the plot gets accepted at face value when it's added to those pages. However, the data is not actually sourced and so the plot is not includable on Wikipedia. A simple warning on the diagram's page equivalent in concept to a "citation needed" tag is necessary to forewarn others who may wish to include the diagram elsewhere.
Generally, if a purported included fact is not verifiable, it's removable. An alternative stop-gap is to "tag" it while due effort is made to find and add-in suitable references. That's what I tried to do, but a persistent editor has taken offense and has edit-warred a reversion. So, if we can't do a simple ordinary thing like warn about lack of sourcing, the diagram remains there unsourced. As it's unsourced and as it's un-taggable, the only alternative is deletion as I see it. Agree? I'd rather be able to simply include a warning, but I see no other alternative at this point. 108.20.176.55 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If the "data not sourced" warning now currently in place (or something as suitable) is allowed to remain, I have no problem keeping. 108.20.176.55 05:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I must change my position on that because it's too easy to simply revert the caution when it looks like no one's paying attention anymore, as was done by User:Prosfilaes here. 108.20.176.55 03:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reassertion of my DELETE "vote" as OP. A caution is inadequate when one editor is on a mission to remove the caution when he thinks no one is looking anymore. The purpose of this image is not to present an interesting or historical photo/image. This purpose of this image to present data. And, that data is unsourced. COM:INUSE does not apply because the image is not just an image, it's actually merely ordinary unsourced data. It's dressed in a pretty package yes, but it's still just ordinary unsourced data.
- It's unlikely the image would ever be used as only a "pretty picture", so it must be construed as data only. Everywhere it's used, it's used to present its unsourced data. As that data is unsourced, it requires a clearly visible tag/caution or the image should be removed. But, since a tag/caution cannot withstand a determined disruptive editor bent on its removal, deletion of the image is the only remaining option.
- Deletion of the image also immediately fixes the problem of the image being used to present its unsourced data on quite a large number of other (non-English) pages. Those other pages (as far as I can tell) present this data without warning that it's unsourced. Deletion of this image would solve the problem of the promulgation of its unsourced data in one fell swoop.
- Ordinarily, unsourced data can simply be deleted and anyone replacing it is required under WP:burden to also provide a source at the time of replacement. Unfortunately, when that data is part of an image as it is here, the bureaucratic hurdles are higher, requiring this deletion request. Remember, ordinarily, this data would simply be summarily removed as against Wikipedia/media policy prohibiting unsourced data -- and no one would think twice about it.
- 108.20.176.55 03:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. You still don't understand that WP:burden and other Wikipedia policies are irrelevant. Various Wikipedias have chosen to use this image; it is not the right of Commons to delete it from under them. If it is problematic under their policies, they can remove it from their pages. Oh, and if you start a DR, you don't add a vote on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. You're still playing "I can't hear you". You still don't understand that this is data, it's not a "pretty picture" and it's unsourced. If you weren't playing "I can't hear you", you'd realize I didn't even assert WP:burden. If you weren't playing aggressive and disruptive games like "deletion of someone else's talk page comment" or "comment strikeout", and worst, "waiting until no one's looking", you could otherwise be trusted to help solve the problem by accepting a simple ordinary warning on the page and we could all go home. But, instead you've shown you can't be trusted to uphold your end of a civil compromise. Can you? 108.20.176.55 06:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- "is required under WP:burden" means what? I don't care about anything you say that comes from Wikipedia; this is Commons, we do things differently here. The relevant policy is COM:INUSE.
- There is no rule that says I must revert you as quickly as you edit. There is a civil compromise; you leave your objections to the image on the talk page.
- Go home, where ever that is. Go beat people over the head with the rules as you see them somewhere else. Given that the rules about using the vk template are the same on Wikipedia, I don't trust you to know Wikipedia's rules any more then Commons, but that's their problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete - The user said they "cosmetically enhanced the graph". That to me implies that they were not the original creator of the graph, and that all they did was add the Fat Man (etc) annotations/pictures. That would make this a derivative work with no original source. Delete per COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: still in use an cant fin an external source for it. JuTa 19:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
