Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all closing
Templates
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all books BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Deletion Review may be used:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, please:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
4.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 January 15}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 January 15|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:

Active discussions

15 January 2016

ACE & Company

ACE & Company (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see ACE & Company's page was deleted while I was making updates. I actually don't get the reason why. Indeed, all of the statements were totally objectives, stating true facts like the year of creation, the founders, assets under management, the type of activity, investments made, etc. I just added close to 15 new sources from Techcrunch, KPMG, Private Equity Wire, Tech In Asia, Deal Street Asia, Irish Times as well as renowned swiss newspapers and magazines such as Le Temps, Bilan and AGEFI to make the article more consistent but I wouldn't even have the time to share my point of view on the subject. In the meantime, this page had been reviewed and was online for nearly 3 months before the speedy deletion nomination was made. Wish I could get a proper explanation. Waiting to hear from you. Sincerely, Angelina Kramer (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE & Company. The previous deletion was due to it being an obvious advertisement. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

8 January 2016

Isleños in Louisiana

Isleños in Louisiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My article "Isleños in Louisiana" was removed with the excuse of that it appears to be a direct copy from http://america.pink/islenos-louisiana_2120190.html However, the article was not a copy of any web page. I will write here what I put on my talk page, because according to her it is here where I should put.

The administrator who removed the article might have realized that through the article references. The "source" that she indicate was a copy from Wikipedia (indeed, this "source" only includes copied information of free web pages. All the information of this online encyclopedia is a copy of such pages. This indicates the page in question). For that reason my article had the references from where came its information since its first edition, while the page that, according to she, was copied by me, have no reference. She might have seen it for herself if she had see the first editions of my article, with their references, and had compared with the page that according your opinion was copied by me.

The article was written slowly. A portion of the article (Texas, Louisiana and Florida) was originally written in the article of "Isleños" (it was written by others). In this article I added more information for months, based on many sources. Eventually, I decided that maybe I could already do an article with the information of the Canarians of United States, that was in the article and was wrote by different users (part of this information was written by others; part was written by me). I asked for advice on the talk page and users agreed. So I published the article "Canarian American". After publication, over time, I added more information based on more sources and creating different sections (for example, in the article of the "Isleños" was spoke about the Canarians from Texas, Louisiana and Florida, but I incorporated to article of "Canarian Americans" the sections "Culture", based on a book that I have in my house). Later, I posted the article "Isleños in Louisiana" based in the "Isleños in Louisiana" section of the "Canarian American" article. Some information of the article you can find on several page back in the "Isleños" Article History (Historial del acticulo). Obviously I deleted the most of information of the "Isleño" article about the Canarians in United States to post it in the article of the "Canarian American" and after in the article of "Isleños in Louisiana". I did Not copy from any source. In the article "Isleños in Louisiana" you could check the sources from which the information comes. The source that she think I copied simply have no references, and its content is based on other websites, as it was indicated in the page "about" of this source. The removal of an article with the false excuse that is a copy of a web page is totally unfair, because that is not true.--Isinbill (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason I believe the page is a copyright violation is because the quality of the prose is far superior to what this editor has produced elsewhere. Most of his other contributions are practically unintelligible. If it's not from the page cited upon deletion, perhaps copied from somewhere else. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn I can't see the deleted article, but "too well written" is not a speedy deletion criteria. I'd urge the deleting admin to restore the article and, if felt necessary, take it to AfD. But this certainly isn't an unambiguous case, and unamiguous is required for a copyright speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. It is extremely likely that "america.pink" copied the material from Wikipedia rather the other way around.

• For a start, the site is unashamedly intended for SEO link farming - it clearly says so in the sidebar.
• Secondly, their "about" page says they are "based on material from free Internet sourses" (sic).
• Thirdly, and I think most compellingly, there is clear evidence that they have bulk-copied other material from Wikipedia. For example, lets take one of my favourite subjects, Lager. Have a quick skim of the History section of our Lager article. Notice the table? Now have a look at america.pink's article on Lager. Looks familiar, doesn't it? But despite the fact that their second paragraph ends with "as shown in the following table:", they don't actually have a table. But we do. So it's pretty clear who copied from whom in that case.

Another example just for fun; compare Scouting in Alabama to Scouting in Alabama]. Count how many non-clickable random occurrences of the phrase "scouting portal" appear in their article, coincidentally in the same place (source-wise) that the same functional and nicely formatted link appears in our article.

This appears to be consistent throughout the site - they have programmed their software to take large random parts of random Wikipedia articles, butcher the infoboxes, tables, and general formatting, slap some random pictures in (what WERE those pictures in the scouting article about?), pretty the whole thing up, and use it to gain search hits and eventually PageRank. It's actually quite cleverly done - they have build an article taxonomy, presumably based largely on our categorization scheme.

Anyway, it seems pretty unlikely that Isinbill committed a copyright infringement in this case. On the other hand we know for sure that america.pink is committing a violation by re-using Wikipedia content without attribution.

Thparkth (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my English is bad still. But in this case it is obvious that the article and the website of "Isleños in Louisiana" should also not be very well written. In fact, Carlstak had indicated that the section of ""Galveztown", in my article, was very poorly written (he always made me feel I was the worst writing in wikipedia in English, but apparently there are others who are quite bad too, because most of that section was written by another user when the article "Isleños in Louisiana" was only part of the article "Isleños") and this section appear en the website (obvioulsy having the same words that in the article of Wikipedia, so it is poorly wrote also). Thus, the excuse of that I misspelled on wikipedia, is a false excuse to try to explain the removal of my article. If my English is bad, unfortunately my article was poorly written and the website also is.--Isinbill (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The article's (completely unattributed) source was our article on Canarian Americans, from sometimee around this revision. —Cryptic 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy overturn. I spot-checked another article from the supposed source (Constitution of Louisiana [1]) and it's clearly copied from the English Wikipedia article. Then I checked an entirely unrelated article (Gabriel Garcia Marquez [2]) and it's clearly copied from the en-wiki article. Fortunately, there are only a few articles here which use America.pink as a source, and our priority should be to clean those up, not to remove articles that the license-violating external site has mirrored. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Leave deleted as a copyright violation per Cryptic, and a content fork. No prejudice against an honest re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The content fork isn't a reason for a speedy deletion and the copyright issue is trivial to address (just create a blank edit that says where the article came from). Not being able to see the article, is it a word-for-word copy or have changes been made? Hobit (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • A better fix for the failure to attribute is to start again and do it properly. The extensive content forking is generally a bad idea, the sort of thing that can do great disservice to the project going forward. Because of the extensive content forking, I recommend that the page not be fixed, but that if desired it may be restarted properly. Properly as in having read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and in minimizing content forking. Yes, it was a dodgy speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Leave deleted verbatim copying of the linked source throughout starting in the lead which has long unquoted verbatim copying of the "abstract" section of the source. Anyone who has access to both should do a quick compare and search for a few passages in the deleted article and you'll find verbatim matches in the linked source. As best I understand copyright rules, lots of verbatim copying cannot be "cured" by changing the order of a few sentences and substituting synonyms here and there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to the external "source" which appears to by copied from Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia article from which this is spun out? Or something else? Hobit (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• • This either belongs at the talk page of the article, ANI, or I suppose AfD as a WP:TNT case. But it's not a reason for a speedy. If this editor is a problem, hiding it under a speedy deletion isn't helpful. If they aren't, this isn't a venue they can reasonably defend themselves in. Hobit (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn From the evidence presented here I think there may well not be a copyright infringement at all and certainly not an unambiguous one. I am unhappy that the writing is being criticised because it is suspiciously good, copying a mirror, following a source too closely and not following it closely enough. To speedy this has been inappropriate, as Hobit says. Thincat (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Fair enough, Hobit, but is it too late to remove those previous remarks, now that Thincat has referred to them? I would much rather be editing or creating articles than navigating Wikipedia's byzantine procedures. I had done some editing on the article before it was deleted, but obviously I can't access its history for diffs. I have done quite a bit of editing on the Canarian American article, which contains some of the same text, mainly to fix Isinbill's edits. The "Canarian American" article contained much disinformation, usually in the form of misinterpretation of cited texts, and the English was very bad in the parts that hadn't been fixed. I fixed some of the English, only to discover when I obtained the source material, that I had made wildly distorted and completely incorrect information look respectable. And that was still a problem with some of the rest of the "Isleños in Louisiana" article, but I can't remember how much was left to be done when the article was deleted. I believe it will still be present if it is restored, in which case, it would be nice if some of the editors who are commenting here would assist me in fixing it. Just remember that it is not simply a matter of correcting poorly written text, but of checking the cited sources to see if they agree with information presented in the article. They all too often do not. Carlstak (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thinking Hobit must have removed your earlier commentary here, I was about to support your complaint about the removal. However, I now see you removed your comments yourself. I agree that DRV can be very arcane! Here is a link to the discussion as it was. This discussion is, I think, useful and the only problem is that it is in the wrong place and, because of that, we are not allowed to see the article being discussed. Thincat (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I was confused. It was a bad speedy. The opening line of WP:CSD is quite clear. If sent to AfD, I think this should be deleted and restarted. It is not good to start an article with extensive content forking. Doing this will make for a cleaner history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Thincat. I removed them accidentally (that happens sometimes when you have two tabs of the same editing page open). I agree with SmokeyJoe that the article should be deleted, for multiple reasons, including the forking. I would be willing to rewrite the article, as I'm familiar with the subject, can read Spanish fairly well, and have a lot of experience fixing articles by the creator. There is much potentially good material in the article as it stood, but the content forking needs to be reworked or removed, errors of fact (there are many) removed, the English fixed, and the refs checked out for discrepancies. I'm all for taking it to AfD, but my stomach gets queasy thinking about doing it myself. Carlstak (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and repair insufficient attribution. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement (WP:G12) says:

  This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the "Files" section here, which has more specific instructions.

  Cryptic wrote above: "The article's (completely unattributed) source was our article on Canarian Americans, from sometimee around this revision." The deleted content likely was the "Louisiana communities of Isleños" section.

  The WP:G12 policy quoted above specifically notes:

  Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion.

  Since the deleted content is "free content" and "mere lack of attribution of such works" is not "a reason for speedy deletion", Isleños in Louisiana "do[es] not fall under this criterion".

  The guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution says:

  While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template. Such belated attribution should make clear when the relevant text entered the page. You can also identify problem articles, in particular complex cases that you cannot fix right away, by tagging the article itself with the templates {{CWW}} (for a single origin) and {{CWW-multi}} (for articles with multiple origins).

  The insufficient attribution can be easily repaired through a dummy edit and through talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template.

  Cunard (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussions

7 January 2016

Ramil Garifullin

Ramil Garifullin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Formal majority of !votes was without rationale arguments. One with incorrect statements, and two not arguemented ("I agree"). Akim Dubrow`s arguements are wrong if consider other language sources

 :Рамиль Гарифуллин (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So deletion was unclear and very formal--Rad8 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• The nomination and followup commenters touched on the lack of availability of reliable references. The only other input to the discussion was a tremendous wall of text that touched on everything from Google hits to some TV appearances, but didn't actually explain how any of this would contribute toward notability, and didn't really mention any references about the individual. Admittedly, the long wall-of-text style did make that argument very hard to parse, but I didn't see anything in it that substantially addressed the issues raised. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse per the consensus. Walls of text will tend to lower rather than increase the chance of comments being taken into consideration. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. The only pertinent argument for deletion was that the subject was not notable - the "he is dishonest" argument doesn't carry any weight in a deletion discussion. Numerically the "he is not notable" argument had the most support.

However, the wall of text !vote, while very difficult to follow, did include a number of links to what appear (via machine translation) to be credible evidence of notability in apparently reliable sources. Here are a few that I found somewhat useable:

• "Renowned psychologist Garifullin Ramil sent to the government a strategy to combat corruption."
• "In Tatarstan began to fight corruption psychotherapeutically"
• "Ex-mayor of Vladivostok, Viktor Cherepkov passed the test for corruption "Program Maximum" on NTV. Propensity him and other officials to bribes studied the famous psychologist and psychotherapist Ramil Garifullin."

So on the one hand we have a few weak delete !votes with "notability" being the only concern, and on the other hand we have multiple plausible sources describing the subject as "renowned" and "famous".

Given my difficulties in assessing the reliability of those sources, I wouldn't go as far as to say "overturn to keep" but I do consider that in terms of argument from policy, "keep" actually had the stronger case. It would have been more reasonable to close this as "no consensus", or perhaps even better relist it and solicit input from Russian-speaking editors.

Thparkth (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist, preferably with that useless wall of text hatted. Poorly argued discussion of a BLP where the rationale for deletion (subject is a notorious fraud) may well indicate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse- A sensible nomination and two well-argued delete votes, against one immense rambling incoherent wall-of-text keep sounds like rough consensus to delete to me. Reyk _YO! 15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Sources look like enough to form the basis for a WP:N claim. The nom and one supporting !vote to delete aren't enough to overcome that. Overturn to NC, no objection to a relist Hobit (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse this looks like a debate where one side attempted to drown out the other with an enormous rambling wall of text, which is never a good way to "win" an AFD. Strength of argument is analysed by the closer rather than gross word count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Relist to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin (2nd nomination). I reviewed the AfD's history. Before the detailed commentary by Irek Minnullin (talk · contribs), two editors already had supported the nominator's deletion nomination. Neither the AfD nominator nor the two "delete" participants returned to the AfD after Irek Minnullin's post. Subsequent edits were made by Rad8, a single-purpose account that supported retention, Northamerica1000, who made cleanup edits, and Seraphimblade, who closed the AfD.

  Other than the single-purpose account, no one but the closing admin reviewed the commentary and sources provided by Irek Minnullin. The AfD closer wrote above, "I didn't see anything in it that substantially addressed the issues raised." But since Thparkth has explained how Irek Minnullin's sources provide credible evidence of notability and since no one in the AfD discussed Irek Minnullin's sources and arguments, the AfD should be relisted for further discussion.

  I recommend relisting to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin (2nd nomination) and not reopening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin so that Irek Minnullin's sources and arguments remain visible but won't prejudice editors to support deletion. See for example Stifle's comment: "Walls of text will tend to lower rather than increase the chance of comments being taken into consideration." And Reyk's comment about "one immense rambling incoherent wall-of-text keep". And Andrew Lenahan's comment: "this looks like a debate where one side attempted to drown out the other with an enormous rambling wall of text".

  Cunard (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Archive

2015
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2014
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2013
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2012
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2011
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2010
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2009
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2008
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2007
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2006
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December