Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

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[edit]

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 (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  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[edit]

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. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
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, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, 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:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 July 20}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 July 20|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 



Active discussions[edit]

20 July 2017[edit]

18 July 2017[edit]

Watch Shop[edit]

Due to the lack of response, I have raised this as a deletion review. Please see the discussion here: ==Deletion review for Watch Shop== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Watch Shop. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Natashajerrellcraig (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Watch Shop (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, I'd like to raise a request for editors to reconsider the speedy deletion of the Watch Shop page. I have reached out to User:SouthernNights and left a message on their talk page but did not receive a response. There was no discussion about deleting the page, and no response in the talk page when I contested the speedy deletion. While the grounds for deletion of the page in 2013 as outlined in Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Watch Shop may have been fair, the status of the subject has since grown and changed. Below, I've outlined a response to the reasons given for the recent deletion (WP:A7 and WP:G4).

Watch Shop is a subsidiary of the UK’s leading jewellery retailer, Aurum Holdings.[1][2] There are live Wikipedia pages about several of Aurum Holdings’ other businesses, including Goldsmiths, Mappin & Webb and Watches of Switzerland. Note: Some of these pages are not written neutrally or as well sourced as the page in question.

The company meets the criteria outlined in WP:WEBCRIT:

“The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” Several newspaper articles document the business’ history, growth, and relevance, including:[3][1][4]

Details about the company are cited with independent, third-party reliable sources.

"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." See Sunday Times Fast Track 100.[5][6]

I can't see what the old page looked like, but while it may not have been valid in 2013, the company is now a leading online retailer in the UK watch market[7][8][9] and a ‘market leader’[10][11] and is therefore relevant in a similar way to Farfetch, Trainline and Moonpig. Its subsequent growth, activity, and consumer interest in it mean it meets notability guidelines, which have been appropriately cited in line with WP:V. Natashajerrellcraig (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Kristy Dorsey (1 December 2014). "Monday Interview: Brian Duffy, Aurum Holdings". The Scotsman. 
  2. ^ Marion Dakers (19 September 2015). "Jewellery group Aurum increases sales after Watch Shop takeover". The Telegraph. 
  3. ^ David Millward (7 June 2013). "Fast Track success for family firm". Get Reading. 
  4. ^ Tom Pegden (8 August 2014). "Goldsmiths owner aquires online leader Watch Shop". Leciester Mercury. 
  5. ^ "Sunday Times Fast Track 100 2010". 2010. 
  6. ^ "Sunday Times Fast Track 100 2011". 2011. 
  7. ^ Maggie O'Sullivan (29 March 2010). "Watchshop: Good buy guide". The Telegraph. 
  8. ^ Rob Corder (25 April 2017). "WatchShop.com shifts into sunglasses". WatchPro. 
  9. ^ "Why Us?". Watch Shop. 
  10. ^ Rob Corder (4 May 2017). "Aurum Holdings confirms creation of Goldsmiths Luxury retail brand". WatchPro. 
  11. ^ Tom Davis (8 August 2014). "Aurum announces acquisition of Watch Shop". Jewellery Focus. 
  • restore with no objection to someone listing at AfD. The sources don't seem great, but are, IMO, enough to get past a speedy deletion at this point (both A7 and G4). Hobit (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you see any independent sources that contain more than a passing mention, Hobit? I may be missing something.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • [1] isn't hugely in-depth, but it's more than in passing. [2] is fairly in-depth, but also looks quite local. Between those and the other sources, I feel that there is both an assertion of notability that can be had and sources that happened after the AfD in 2013. I won't claim it's clearly passing WP:N, but I do think that puts it over the bar of A7 and G4. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment can an admin tell us who the article creator was/if it is the same as Natashajerrellcraig ? I find it interesting that there is no CSD warning on their talk page and this is there second edit. If it was created by them, a trout to the nominator for not notifying, and I'd be open to userfy on that combined with the above. I also suspect this might be an undeclared paid situation. While I'd normally be open to userfication of G4s from AfDs multiple years ago, these concerns combined with S Marshall's points about the mere passing mentions in the sourcing have me suspecting that this might be a situation where it would be a possible G5 deletion if restored . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I've tempundeleted the article (which also makes the full history available). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • That's useful, thanks. I would like comments from the nom here. The fact that you have only used this account to edit on this topic leads me to suspect there may be WP:COI issues here. Could you explain what caused you to create this article (from scratch in one edit it appears)? Do you have any other accounts? Hobit (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Hello and thanks for reviewing my request. I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning the processes, so apologies if I’ve missed something out by not notifying editors that I had created the page. In response to your questions, I follow blogs like WatchPro[1] and Jewellery Focus[2] and noticed there wasn’t a Watch Shop page on Wikipedia, while there were pages for related companies like Goldsmiths and Watches of Switzerland. I thought it seemed relevant, in line with existing pages about other UK online retailers I mentioned before (Farfetch, Trainline, and Moonpig). The reason the article was uploaded in one edit was because I had been working on it offline and amending it in the Sandbox until it was complete.

References

  1. ^ "WatchPro". WatchPro. 
  2. ^ "Jewellery Focus". Jewellery Focus. 
          • I don't know that you quite answered all my questions, sorry if they were unclear. #1: Do you have any other accounts here? #2: Have you been paid or otherwise compensated in any way for writing this article? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn WP:G4 was an invalid nomination (simply speculative?) and G4 should not have been cited in the deletion rationale. Before, after, diff, or is my diff awry? However, the deletion also cited WP:A7 and this has much more going for it. Even using the wikithink that importance is a lower bar than notability, this article has a better chance surviving challenge at AFD for notability than at CSD for A7. Articles about small businesses are all the better if they do not claim importance but merely make a sober assessment of whatever is the state of affairs. This article seems to manage (no one has yet said "spam") and the reading is therefore uninteresting. It is this, rather than any exuberance, that is raising questions about whether it has been written with ulterior motives. So, I'll conclude that the speedy was not "when no controversy exists". Restore, userspace, draft? I don't know. Maybe restore. Thincat (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn doesn't meet G4 given the difference from the deleted version, although the tagger was not an admin and presumably wouldn't have known that. There were also several claims of significance which I think should have prevented A7 deletion, including "UK’s largest luxury jeweller", several awards and national press coverage. The fact the AfD was four years ago doesn't exactly help. I'm not sure there's enough here to survive another AfD but I think there is enough to justify sending it back there. Hut 8.5 20:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn Clearly not G4, though no fault of the tagger on that count. Agree with Hut 8.5 that this should be sent back to AfD. I'd likely !vote delete on both notability and spam grounds, but I don't see it meeting any of the CSD criteria at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

17 July 2017[edit]

Marcquelle Ward[edit]

Marcquelle Ward (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've discovered new sources that appear to support notability. These were not considered in the original discussion, and I believe this qualifies as "new information" to overturn the deletion. The first source is the most significant, but the others are also substantial coverage. [3] [4] [5] ~ Rob13Talk 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Relist and restore so that the sources can be evaluated at AfD. I don't have a particular view one way or another on this subject, but coverage in regional papers can swing either way in an AfD conversation when editors are weighing them. Best to go ahead and get more discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Perfectly fine with that solution. ~ Rob13Talk 12:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore and Relist at AfD. The AfD saw minimal participation. I'm not terribly excited about the sources presented here, but they're at least plausible, and deserve discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Userify Relisting an AfD from February would be too discontinuous. Integrate the new content and put it back in mainspace--DRV is not required. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to soft delete. An AFD with only two participants should ideally have been treated like an expired PROD, so we should just restore the article as if this was a request at WP:REFUND. Regards SoWhy 11:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

16 July 2017[edit]

CPC character set (closed)[edit]

15 July 2017[edit]

Trump campaign–Russian meeting[edit]

Trump campaign–Russian meeting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:WITHDRAWN is clear. A discussion can not be closed as "nominator withdrew" if anyone other than the nominator has voted non-keep. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I believe the article should be kept under Wikipedia:Notability (events). However, the original close was premature and inconsistent with the deletion process. Mattflaschen - Talk 06:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree the close was premature and also violated WP:WITHDRAWN. But if the outcome was in effect identical to your preferred outcome (and indeed there was already a 2-to-1 [12 to 6] WP:CONSENSUS to Keep), this DRV seems a WP:POINTY and pointless waste of time. You already made your point on the closer's talk page; no need to bring it here when the outcome will remain the same (the same outcome that would have occurred if the AfD had run for a full 7 days). I suggest a speedy close of this DRV (and a reminder to Bishonen to re-review WP:WITHDRAWN). -- Softlavender (talk)
There were as many merge/delete votes as there were keep votes, I wouldn't call it a consensus for keep, but like you said that would have been the end result either way. It's why I decided to just propose a merger on the talk page after talking with the closing admin, rather than another deletion discussion. WikiVirusC(talk) 11:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Softlavender (except for the WP:POINTY part). Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO and re-opening the AfD wouldn't accomplish anything more than the ongoing merge discussion. Given that the subject has been prominently covered in the news for the past four days, with updated information being released, it is highly unlikely that the merge proposal will succeed and even less likely that a deletion proposal would pass.- MrX 10:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is closing discussion. The admin did not tell it was closed because of the withdrawal. He tells it was closed as "keep" and withdrawn. That was a legitimate closure. Here is ungoing merging discussion with very clear consensus to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • comment - It was a !vote count as evidenced above when it should have been a decision based on the merits of the arguments. I also question the numbers of new editors that participated in the discussion which has/should have some influence in a close. Common sense and a close review of the comments shows that the consensus was to merge, as even some of the keeps approved a merge if keep didn't fly. This article fails policy on several counts and for that reason, should not have been allowed out of Draft Space the way it was written - (like the review of a spy thriller movie). It is not a stable article, it is filled with conspiracy theories that fail WP:V regardless of MSM's boldness in publishing them (they are allowed to propagandize their news, WP is not). It is clear to see that the article is politically charged and improperly weighted, and my edits to correct that failure were removed making this article even more unstable. It fails on so many counts, including WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:N, and the list goes on. I do not disagree with merging the stable parts of the article to a section in a current article, be it the campaign (which is really where it belongs regardless of when the conspiracy theories began to fly), or Trump "associates" (whatever that means) and Russia. Notabiity is based on the fact that the event incentivized MSM to publish conspiracy theories which are being challenged as we speak. New revelations have come forward overnight. Atsme📞📧 14:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Irrespective of its ultimate validity, this close was woefully premature. Trout the closer and alert AfD participants about the merge discussion, where the merits are being actively debated. — JFG talk 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Trout and ping per JFG. @Atsme: @Baseball Bugs: @Bishonen: @Casprings: @Classicwiki: @Darmokand: @DarthBotto: @Don1182: @F2Milk: @Hidden Tempo: @I am One of Many: @JFG: @KConWiki: @Laurel Wreath of Victors: @Mattflaschen: @N-HH: @NoMoreHeroes: @NorthBySouthBaranof: @PackMecEng: @Power~enwiki: @Ryk72: @Sagecandor: @Sundayclose: @WikiVirusC: @Wnt: Close was clearly contrary to WP:WITHDRAWN, but given that essentially the same discussion is now underway at Talk:Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting#Merger_proposal, the least disruptive way forward would be to continue the discussion there -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure There was no chance that the page would be deleted outright; having a merge discussion on the talk page is the appropriate forum. While technically a violation of the closing rules to have it closed as withdrawn rather than WP:SNOW, I feel WP:IAR applies. Overall, there needs to be some high-level consensus to allow for procedure-based administrative handling of these types of pages (such as a CSD if they aren't approved by a consensus on a WikiProject); the AfD process clearly cannot handle them. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The close was improper and to soon. Less than 24 hours on a fairly split vote. Also snow would in no way apply to this situation. It is important to remember the vote is not by number of votes, but strength of argument. With the keep votes only argument being "clearly notable". I am not however advocating for reopening the AFD or a new one, as is it a moot point with the merge discussion on going. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Though I am all for this being its own individual article, I did not approve of the improper closure of the AfD and would have preferred a declaration of no consensus. That being said, I believe our merger discussion will suffice, so let's keep the AfD closed and assume good faith. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure And close merge discussion as keep. Whatever the previous arguments, the article clearly meets WP:N as a stand along event.Casprings (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    comment - the ongoing updates and disagreements over "allegations vs facts" are proof this article is not ready to be a standalone in mainspace. Some allegations were made, there was an attempt to link the Trump administration with the Russian government, the allegations have been denied, and now it's just MSM hype and big ole nothingburger. There is no harm to the encyclopedia by waiting for the allegations to be substantiated, the MSM frenzy of breaking news to subside as it always does, and then we can create a stable article once the facts have been substantiated. As it stands now, it's nothing more than a few paragraphs in merge. Atsme📞📧 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, while I think the AfD was uncalled for and the merger proposal currently underway was the best solution (no good reason not to include this content in here), the AfD closure was very questionable. There was a significant number of delete and merge (including my own) !votes, and the discussion was still much too recent to result in closure. But anyway, it's probably a dead horse by now. A merger discussion is already in progress. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse close: AfD is now largely moot due to the on-going Keep vs Merge discussion on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per K.e.coffman's reasoning. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 07:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure And close merge discussion as Keep. Agree with analysis by Casprings, above. Article subject has only gotten more notable and received more coverage from thousands more sources in more languages in more locations in more places in the world, since the closure. Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am unclear on the nature of the 'closure' being discussed: is this a call for closure of discussion and a vote (as in closure in Parliament/cloture in Congress) on retention/deletion? Or are these "endorse closure"s themselves votes for closing (deleting) the page? Or what?
This is a highly notable incident at this point, and there is ongoing journalistic and government investigation (Robert Muller)); it seems clear that it deserves its own page.Mikalra (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
They are endorsing the closing of the article for deletion discussion. Not endorsing a deletion of the article. The article was kept, but the discussion was thought of as being closed before it was done, and this review is to see if people want to reopen that discussion or just leave it closed. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Amend closure to no consensus / Overturn, and immediately re-close as no consensus. Per comments at their Talk page, closer did not assess a consensus; in part due to the difficulties involved in attempting to assess such a fluctuating discussion, where people were talking about all different things; and is supportive of a new AfD. Per K.e.coffman, above, re-opening conflicts with the current Merge discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure per Casprings. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Relist, procedural error which vitiates the closure. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

13 July 2017[edit]

Jonathan Power (journalist) (closed)[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

12 July 2017[edit]

Moglix (closed)[edit]

7 July 2017[edit]

6 July 2017[edit]

Archive[edit]

2017
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2016
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
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