Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14

Onome Sodje (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the precedent below, I suggest that the nominator post to the talkpage of the administrator who did the deletions, before bringing these here. If that admin agrees that the person is now notable, he or she can undelete without the need for a DRV process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - it is not appropriate for projects to introduce standards lower than WP:BIO for particular sports. We have a clear standard "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." that provides for consistency across all sports. If this project wants a relaxation then they should propose an amendment to WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ben Purkiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I closed this as delete as he did not pass WP:BIO for athletes. If he now does, I don't see the point in a DRV. Just re-create the article. Black Kite 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Assuming that a reliable source to that effect can be found the article should be restored. Without impugning the prior deletion restoration should facilitate article improvement. After all, after recreation a history restoration would be non-controversial. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a reliable source which cites York City, his club, as being professional. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - it is not appropriate for projects to introduce standards lower than WP:BIO for particular sports. We have a clear standard "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." that provides for consistency across all sports. If this project wants a relaxation then they should propose an amendment to WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Martyn Woolford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Now has an implication of notablity as he has played for a professional club in a national league, meaning he passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion In my opinion, if a particular person's notability has changed, it is better to re-create the article including and emphasizing the information that asserts this notability. See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Jason_Goodliffe -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - it is not appropriate for projects to introduce standards lower than WP:BIO for particular sports. We have a clear standard "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." that provides for consistency across all sports. If this project wants a relaxation then they should propose an amendment to WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

James McKeown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article is now notable as the subject has played in a professional football league, and so passing WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• When I deleted this article in August 2007 he had not acquired the notability which Mattythewhite mentions. I am therefore wholly content that this article be resored. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Restored per nom and with consent of the administrator who deleted. Someone more familiar than I with the templates should kindly close this DRV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

De Sacia Mooers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This actress was speedy'd by A7, but it seems unclear to me. She appeared in over 100 films, at least some of which are notable (based on oncoming links). There are many sources, but it's hard to tell how non-trivial the mentions are, but several, in particular her obituaries, mention her by name in the title, as though readers would have known who she is,. The sources include newspapers from across the U.S., indicating it wasn't local fame, and across decades, indicating that it wasn't a short burst of fame. Rigadoun (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the cache, can you provide sources? I can see lists of films that she made, but not much on a bio. Corvus cornix_talk 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. This is interesting. Overturn, the link I provided shows enough notability to at least require an AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn CSD If notability is possible, as appears to be the case here, CSD is not appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn. I believe there is clearly sufficient notability for an article and certainly enough that speedy is inappropriate. I suggest that the nominator consult with the deleting admin for consent to restore immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. If her death was important enough to warrant an obit in the NYT, she certainly is notable enough to avoid A7. AFD is obviously at editorial discretion. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn here's here IMDb page [1] and a link to her NYT obit (only availbe for purchase online)[2] Notability seems probable and was clearly asserted in the article (i.e. reliable sources, 100+ silent era Hollywood films). Eluchil404 (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyt Tikkun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing admin erred in keeping this non-notable article. Article was kept due to inherited notability of leader in violation of WP:ITSA and misapplication of notability guidelines. Asking for article to be deleted. Bstone (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse keep As required by WP:ORG, the synagogue has been the the subject of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. Yes, some of the coverage is related to the controversial rabbi who founded and leads the synagogue and some of it is related to the controversial activist who was invited to speak there on Yom Kippur, but the synagogue itself is at the heart of the coverage. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep That AfD looks to have a pretty darned strong consensus to me. WP:ITSA, while widely recognised, is merely an essay and does not trump consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response * Per WP:ORG,

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

This congregation is a chapter in the larger Renewal movement, has not achieved sufficient notability through reliable sources as the primary topic but merely as the place where it happened to occur and, as such, needs to be deleted. Bstone (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:ORG, just like other guidelines, doesn't trump consensus either. An article that passes WP:ORG by the letter isn't guaranteed to be kept, nor is one that fails by the letter guaranteed to be deleted. These things are called guidelines for a reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Response There is no such thing as a "chapter in the larger Renewal movement", as the movement consists of people and synagogues who share common values. There is no organization of Renewal synagogues analogous to the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism or the Union for Reform Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• DRV is not the second round of AfD, which is what you are attempting to do as evidenced by this post. Therefore, Endorse. --Smashville^BONK! 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment as the closing admin who "erred" in keeping this article, for context here is the AFD discussion and the following discussion on my talk page relating to the error of my ways. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse keep This is a marginally notable subject, but its non-notability is equally marginal. Although I was skeptical of its notability in the AfD itself, it does meet the core policy requirements of WP:NOR and WP:V so there is no policy violation here. WP:N and WP:ORG are guidelines that permit occassional exceptions, and WP:ITSA, the primary basis for deletion review, is merely an essay "and editors are not obligated to follow it." The community had a clear consensus here. Editors may disagree with community decisions in marginal cases, but if Wikipedia is to remain a community-edited encyclopedia, the community's decision must be respected. This is particularly true in this case, where the editor requesting review has referred only to guidelines and essays and has not identified any policy violation, and there is none. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep Looks like a very definite consensus to keep on the original AfD, and I am certain that I would, had the decision been mine, have kept it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep DRV is not AfD Part 2. JuJube (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• endorse keep per Starblind and Shira. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. It is disingenuous for the nominator to suggest that the "Article was kept due to inherited notability of leader in violation of WP:ITSA and misapplication of notability guidelines" when, after exhaustive discussions and many additional citations and sources added, a WP:CONSENSUS was attained that it is indeed notable. After that, the nominator has recently continued to nominate other synagogue articles and stubs for deletion and it looks like he is violating WP:POINT as well. There is now a discussion about this situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Clear consensus for retention, and no pressing policy reasons to overrule this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Supernatural Chicago (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This entry was deleted after a proposed deletion which only went uncontested because I was not aware at that time that it was being reviewed. Please restore it, as there is nothing in this article that runs afoul of the deletion policy. Supernatural Chicago is a significant production that, in its lengthy run (it is beginning its fifth year this month) has become a mainstay of Chicago theater (it is therefore linked to the Chicago Theater page) and is a unique representative of interactive and environmental theater (both of which should be linked terms) and is staged in a historically recognized location (Excalibur nightclub, where another link logically appears). It has attracted considerable media attention in Chicago, and has even been named by the enormous travel community at TripAdvisor.com as one of the top 10 attractions in Chicago (http://chicago-hotels.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g35805-Activities-Chicago_Illinois.html). If Tony 'n Tina's Wedding (another longrunning interactive/environmental show) merits a Wikipedia article, so does this. Necromancer66 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete as contested PROD, but strongly suggest the nominator clean it up fast, as it looks unlikely to pass AfD in its former state. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Manganese(II) oxide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Manganese(II) oxide doesn't require context to be identified Lysis rationale (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Should have been deleted under WP:CSD#A3 ("no content") instead of WP:CSD#A1 ("No context"). If anyone wants to write an actual article, there is no prejudice from such a speedy deletion. But no actual article was deleted, and there is nothing worth restoring. GRBerry 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Content at time of deletion was "Chemical Formula: MnO Chemical Properties:" and nothing else. If anyone wants to put in an article, they can go ahead, but debating whether to undelete 5 words is a little silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion per the page's content in Starblind's argument above. Articles like that are worse than having no article because the bluelinks and appearance in the database fool the reader into thinking that we have an article on the subject when we don't. Chemical compounds are fair subjects for articles though, so feel free to write something, even if it's a stub. Just make sure to make the article useful to the readers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy but write a new article I find over 400 papers on scifinder, so it's a noteworthy chemical which should have an article, but you don't need to ask for five words to be undeleted to go ahead and write one. If you're worried about it being deleted again before it's complete, use Template:underconstruction while it's in progress, or write a draft on a user subpage like this one and transfer the content when it's finished. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Archeology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

{{{reason}}} ELDRAS (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion AFD was properly closed, and I can't see a single valid reason for overturning the close. GRBerry 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Black-on-White crime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

Blacks commit crime way out of proportion, how is this category not important? CplJames (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion The very creation of this deletion review is a violation of WP:POINT. --Veritas (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per Veritas; Articles and categories should not be in vio of WP:POINT, and you should not be using WP as your personal soapbox. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as well. The category is nothing but POV-pushing. —Travis^talk 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per all the above. AniMate 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I would like to assume good faith, and cast aside any presumption of intention to be "inflammatory". However, I am voting Delete as this is non-encyclopedic. How are we defining "Black"? What about "Brown" people? Are we including latinos and arabs as white people? Jews & indians? On Wikipedia, we don't categorise racially as it is impossible to do, racial identity is an entirely artificial construct and is impossible to measure in any meaningful way. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a case of going to Daddy when mommy doesn't give you what you want... Also it should be noted that the user that started this review has been blocked for disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Let's assume the nominators rationale ("Blacks commit crime way out of proportion") is correct for the sake of argument. How is this even remotely relevant to categorization? Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines #11: "Bend the rules above when it makes sense, especially when it is the best solution that can be found under the circumstances." In this case it makes no sense. -- Cat ^chi? 04:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Ridiculous. WP is not a soapbox. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all the very valid reasons given above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as this is an obvious POV category. Yahel Guhan 05:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Per my original delete vote, this is a bad idea for a category, as it's based in a false premise (that Black on White crime is actually more significant than black on black, or white on white, once you discount white panic and the MSM.) The creator's attitude and comments also demonstrate that the category was created otu of motivations which straddle POINT and SOAPBOX. ThuranX (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per CSD:Common sense. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Category was emptied and deleted without following the process called for at WP:CFD. The contents should be moved from the replacement category and returned here. If a rename is still desired, it should be requested using the process defined in WP:CFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Some discussion on this topic's recent history is available at Talk:Disney's Hollywood Studios#Orlando attractions vs Florida attractions (too much to copy/paste here). Related categories that were created/renamed around the same timeframe are: Category:Roller coasters in Greater Orlando‎, Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Tampa‎, Category:Roller coasters in Greater Tampa‎. SpikeJones (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Its file contents were merely 5 category entries: [[Category:Visitor attractions in Florida]] [[Category:Orlando, Florida]] [[Category:Landmarks in Florida]] [[Category:Landmarks in the United States by city]] [[category:Visitor attractions by city|Orlando]], and it had no members, as at 18 Feb 2008. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The contents were moved to Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando out of process. The deleted category should be restored and the contents returned. This can be done by the bots so it is not a lot of work. Then a discussion on a renaming can be held if desired. This name that was created likely does not follow previous consensus decisions on naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Per nom, reverse out-of-process move, and if desired, nominate at CFD. --Kbdank71 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Neuroracism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

i would like a deleted page "neuroracism" to be restored: the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria (neologism is NOT listed as criteria). There was no "marking for proposed deletion," only a speedy deletion. The term "neuroracism" goes hand-in-hand with "Neurodiversity" (which is a neologism listed here without contest, thankfully). The admin claimed "neuroracism" was a non-notable neologism, but i have read the term in use elsewhere (i do not think i coined it). i attempted to discuss this with the admin who did the deletion but his responses were unhelpful. It was NOT a discussion. He offered links and copy/paste text explanation from the WP:deletion definition. i asked for a copy of the deleted material and was ignored. i did not challenge this at the time because i did not know the proper formalities involved. i learned that there are "alternatives to deletion" (just today, as i looked through my contribution list). i would be more than happy to see the Neuroracism content added to the Neurodiversity page as an alternative to complete restoration, if it is maintained that my deleted page does not belong here (yet). i wish not to attempt recreation of the deleted material on my own and seek restoration from back up (which is why i am not simply trying to add it to Neurodiversity myself. i do not HAVE the original material; it was written well enough the first time and i contest that it does merit its own entry into WikiPedia). Dysamoria (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse delete, looking at the deleted article it is apparent that this would be easily deleted at an AfD due to the conflict of interests, the fact it was "coined" by the article creator, has zero notability attached to it, and at the extreme end can be argued is a case of original research and essay publishing. If nothing else this article violates the spirit of speedy deletion criterion A7, and restoring it only to have it be effectively deleted again would be process and policy wonkery. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Lid. While deletion process was not strictly followed in this case, let's see what would happen if it were:
  1. The page would be undeleted now.
  2. The page would be {{prod}}ded.
  3. User:Dysamoria would deprod it.
  4. The page would be sent to AFD.
  5. The page would be deleted by an overwhelming majority.
• As such, to undelete it for failure to follow process, while by the strictest interpretation is what we should do, would indeed be wonkish. See WP:WONK. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I like Splash's call more - keep deleted without endorsement. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Administrators should learn to follow policy. This was deleted as non-notable neologism. To put it bluntly, had any candidate been asked at an RfA whether this was a good reason for deletion and answered yes, and made similar drastic errors, the community probably would have rejected the candidacy. The only way to send this message properly is to overturn the deletion. Yes, it will be deleted at AfD, but there I disagree with Stifle over the reason, since COI also is not a reason to delete--but it is clear OR, and would be quickly deleted on that basis. Following policy is not the "wonkery" but the basic reason why Deletion Review is here in the first place. DGG (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorsse deletion. Deletion review isn't for sending messages - properly or otherwise - but rather for reviewing deletion. This would never survive the inevitable full AfD, so there's nothing to fix here, regardless of the rule-bending involved in the original deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin: looking back on this deletion, this probably wasn't as clear-cut as I thought it was at the time. This term was original research, was conceived by the author, and had no reliable sources supporting the definition, or even its use, but none of these are criteria for speedy deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. May I quote the first paragraph: "Neuroracism is not a formal word at this time. It has potentially been "coined" by the creator of this entry (dysamoria) for the purpose of helping to define a currently "invisible" minority and new type of "protected class" in relation to Equal Opportunity rights, general legal protection and accommodation, and to widen the understanding of racism as a toxic anti-social behavior." This article therefore fails at least two core policies and probably more besides and it makes no sense to undelete it. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the article explicitly stated that this was a self-coined neologism and original research. It's not an encyclopedia article. I have emailed the content at the time of deletion to you, since you say you did not keep a backup. --Stormie (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted without endorsement. As JzG says, it makes no sense to undelete this, but as in so many cases, the present DRV could have been avoided by proceeding correctly in the first place. A prod would have done the job just fine, for example. Splash - tk 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense, advertising (of a new term) or good old WP:IAR would all have done - 5 days was not necessary. We don't want another Exicornt here. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• You'd do better not to pick with those who 90% agree with you. Patent nonsense does not apply, as the definition of that term has long made plain since you have understood it perfectly well enough to explain what is wrong with it; advertising you know very well is for commercial spam; and IAR is for those that fancy it and can get it right. I repeat that, had this been done properly, there'd be no DRV at all now. Not having done it properly is the equivalent of donning a Drama Pendant, and I'll be no endorser of such courses of action. Splash - tk 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Deleting admin apparently selected wrong deletion reason, but making this go through two additional votes to achieve the same inevitable correct result is simply a waste of time. We all agree it should be deleted, for a variety of reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion since no one except the article creator actually thinks it should be kept on the merits, and a ceremonial 5 days on AFD would serve little purpose. The deleting admin, above, has reconsidered whether this was a proper speedy deletion, and will presumably be more careful in the future. If he shows a pattern of using speedy deletion in circumstances where it's not authorized, then the answer would be dispute resolution, not resurrecting junk articles simply so they can be deleted again after going through the motions. At this time, there's no reason to believe this was anything but an isolated incident. *** Crotalus *** 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Article did not fit speedy deletion criteria so should not have been speedy deleted, but as others have said there is no chance article would survive an AFD so no point overturning the deletion. Davewild (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse without reservation. This article was patent original research, as clearly stated by the author in the first two sentences. That the author was unaware that such is forbidden is not a mitigating factor. An administrator who prodded it or sent it to AFD instead of deleting it outright would not be doing his job; it doesn't get any more obvious than this. —Cryptic 13:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, and not just for the obvious reason. Often, deletion debates for content like this can be appallingly incivil towards the creator. Quietly deleting (or userfying and nuking the redirect, which is what I often do) is less WP:BITEy in actual practice than the more apparently kind five days debate. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Marshall2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like a deleted image, Image:Marshall2.jpg, fully restored for a temporary review. An administrator, User:East718, deleted it and has decied to take a break from Wiki, making it very difficult to discuss the matter with them. The image was posted some time ago and the administrator believed insufficient description was given for fair use. If the page is restored, all can review and I will make sure to address any concerns or inadequacies in accordance with Wiki policies. Thanks. Cato2000 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Overturn as the subject of the photo is dead (for about 12 years now) and finding a free photo is extremely unlikely. This photo would qualify as fair use if given a proper fair use rationale. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)