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
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. 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 June 14}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 June 14|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

12 June 2016

Truth (Gwen Stefani song)

Truth (Gwen Stefani song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(Note: AfD was a bundle that also included Asking 4 It and Rare (Gwen Stefani song).)

Non-admin closure after only 4 editors commented, at least 1 of whom is a significant contributor to the three articles, and 2 of whom reviewed the articles as GAs. The discussion should have been relisted, not closed, so that more uninvolved editors could comment. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comment: the "consensus" was to keep 2 of the articles and redirect the third. The discussion, however, indicated preference (among the few commenters) to delete the third article. As deleting is not an action a non-admin can do, that's another reason this closure was inappropriate. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse keep was the only option on two of them given the !votes and sources. The redirect call is correct per WP:NSONG which asks that songs be redirected. Quite within the closer's discretion IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. AFD isn't ArbCom, there's no requirement that commenters be 'uninvolved'. For what it's worth, there's a lot of precedent for keeping singles from major recording artists, so nominating them is pretty pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, there's a lot of precedent for keeping singles from major recording artists Yes. When the singles in questions are notable aside from the standalone album. These aren't individually notable, and even with the "precedent" you claim exists, these aren't singles. Sourcing was noted to be generally poor and unreliable. More importantly, (since my concern is the closure, after all) the discussion attracted comments from very few editors, virtually all of whom were involved in the development of the articles. There was no reason the discussion shouldn't have been relisted for additional comments, particularly from those with no hand in the matter. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. Please check out the sources again; I believe I can share my opinion here too, even if I was heavily involved with this discussion? That's not fair of you to say – the only one complaining about the sourcing was you, while the other users involved found it to be fine, including @Ss112: and myself. Carbrera (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment from AfD closer – nobody, apart from the AfD nominator, has raised any concerns over the reliability and quantity of the sources for "Asking 4 It" and "Rare". There is near-unanimous consensus among the four discussion participants to keep these two articles and to delete "Truth". Discussion participants being involved with editing the articles just means that they are familiar with these articles, and in no way should their opinions be negated. Both deletion and redirection hides the article content from the article's live version, but redirection is more suitable in this case because it aids navigation and allows non-admins to selectively merge content into the album article. SSTflyer 03:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. I thought this was done and dusted already. Not really worth a reexamination. All that's been said about their adequate sourcing has been said. Just noting, I don't see how my one edit to each of the pages makes me a "significant contributor", because I didn't review them as GAs. Ss112 07:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. Could not have been closed as delete, for sure. Read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Relist all separately as there appears to be differing levels of support for each one. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There were differing levels outcome also, so it seems like that was addressed at least to some extent. What are you seeing that makes you think the closer didn't capture those levels correctly? Hobit (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse per other comments above. The close reasonably reflected the consensus of those commenting, and I see no supervening policy or BLP type issues that warrant another round of consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

8 June 2016

Death of Prince

Death of Prince (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting relist, this deletion is a bit premature given the fact that it was and still is a current event. The article was in this state when nominated with 25 sources. During the duration of the AfD the article expanded to 64 sources and was improved to this condition. General arguments in favor of deletion believe that a celebrity death is not separate from the celebrity, which is true in some circumstances, but not a valid rationale for deletion or redirecting. Sources and scope of coverage is what makes an event notable. The Death of Prince mirrors the Death of Michael Jackson, the precedence allows stand alone articles for highly covered notable deaths regarding major public figures. Since the closure, numerous sources have been released citing cause of death. USA Today, CBS News and this Rolling Stone article is the type of comprehensiveness we are looking for when it comes to stand alone articles. I believe the closer rationale for WP:TOOSOON no longer applies and recommend a relist for new consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. My closure at the time was accurate. Since there may be evidence that the topic has lasting notability, allow recreation of the article with no prejudice against speedy renomination for AfD. Note that the history of the article prior to it being redirected is publicly accessible. SSTflyer 00:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• endorse close. There was nothing wrong with the close, nothing in the above that changes anything about it. All those arguments were made in the deletion discussion, and hold no weight here. See WP:DRVPURPOSE. Nothing has changed significantly since then. The cause of death is now known, but that requires only a sentence added to Prince (musician), and would not have changed the outcome of the discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close. The consensus was nearly unanimous -- this article is not needed or warranted. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close The consensus was clear and it was due to the subject itself, not due to a lack of sources. There has been no significant change in circumstances since the closure. This can be covered in the article. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow recreation as many of the major arguments in the AfD now no longer apply ("we don't even know how he died yet"), positively invite the issue to be revisited in the future, or are of questionable validity in the first place (e.g. arguing that we don't need articles about the deaths of famous people - we do for some famous people and it depends on the particular situation). The AfD was over a month ago, which is quite a bit of time for a current event. Hut 8.5 20:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Deletion review is a venue where issues or errors relating to the deletion process are reviewed. It is not a venue to advance new arguments or re-argue old ones that were appropriate to be dealt with at the AFD itself. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. Argue for a spinout at Talk:Prince (musician). DRV is not needed for this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with both Hut 8.5 and Smokey Joe. DRV should specifically acknowledge it's not unreasonable to have a spinout even in the face of the AfD, but if we should have one should be decided at the talk page of the parent article, not here. Hobit (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• The close was well-reasoned and appropriate, and specifically acknowledged that a re-spin-out might be appropriate in the future. If that time is here, then DRV is not a necessary step; as others have pointed out, talk page would be a better place to build consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. As noted above, discussion of whether there should be a separate article can be renewed once some more time has passed and allows for greater perspective on how much material a separate article might contain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussions

3 June 2016

Andy Zipf

Andy Zipf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Including the nominator, two editors stated that the article should be deleted. No editors contested. Not sure why Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) decided that the debate needed to be closed as no consensus is beyond me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: The rationale for the no consensus closure is stated atop the AfD discussion page, where I stated that the !vote following your nomination appears to have been based only upon sourcing in the article, "as nothing here at all actually convincing of his own notability as an article" (bold emphasis mine) "As nothing here" implies that the user's assessment of notability was only based upon sources in the article. See also WP:NEXIST, an important part of the Wikipedia:Notability page. AfD discussions are closed based upon the strengths of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and are not closed based upon an !vote count. Also note that I closed the discussion with no prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

When I nominated, I searched for sources and found only one to support notability. I said nothing about nothing here. I'm sorry that I did not make that more clear. I am not being disingenuous as I searched and found nothing. @SmokeyJoe: offer some of the sources that you have found. I have no clue why so many editors assume I stated that there were no sources in the article because I have re-read what I wrote, and I did not write that. I wrote that I could only find one source. So, I'm sorry that I didn't explain it more clearly, but there are no sources which is why I nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"I said nothing about nothing here." - that's not what is said. "!vote following your nomination..." meaning the other opinion expressed in the discussion is the "nothing here" based purely on the existing article content and hence seem to carry little or no weight. Since it had already been relisted twice they elected to close it using their own discretion as no consensus. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, the point is that you, nor anyone else in the discussion had made a minimum case for deletion. I have just read through the first thirty ghits of ""Andy Zipf" -wikipedia". Of the first thirty, all are promotional and/or non-independent. So, I now agree to "delete". However, your nomination implies that you looked at one and decided it should be deleted. Swister's implies that he made a cursory review of the nomination and agreed, but that !vote is severely weakened if you not that he posts near identical poor English no-details !votes on very many AfDs. The closing admin did very well to note that the arguments made were insufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's entirely a lie @SmokeyJoe:. I a compelling case. I showed which guideline the subject should meet and he did not. I also did WP:BEFORE and found only one source that meets :WP:RS and I offered it. You on the other hand did absolutely nothing in the discussion and instead come to the aide of a useless admin who didn't look at the evidence and then call me out for not making a case. What sort of logic is that? I have seen articles that meet WP:N be deleted because empty heads like yours come along and see "there are not sources in the article" and then nominate, and then similar empty heads agree that there are no sources in the article and "agree with nom". In generaly, the music AfDs see very little traffic, save SisterTwister and me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A lie? A compelling case? Are we talking about this, "Fails WP:MUSICBIO and definitely WP:GNG. I found ttps://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/av/2011/07/album-stream-andy-zipf---jealous-hands.html but that's not particularly significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)" as the entirety of your case? I see two assertions and one poor source that you criticise. If you did anything per WP:BEFORE, you didn't say so, and so it must be assumed that you did not. You found one poor source, but how hard did you look? Please say when you nominate. I do not back down from saying that your cursory nomination was inadequate. This is not to say that the article should be kept. Similarly, SisterTwister, he is usually right, but gives inadequate explanation. If you don't want AfD to be run and decided by empty heads, don't make empty head sounding nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. Nominator disingenuously implies a lack of sources findable when there are an abundance of ghits to review. The only support was our notoriously shallow delete !voter, whose !votes imply zero investigation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as per the consensus (shallow though it was). Nobody turning up in over three weeks to argue for the article speaks a lot. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse but wrong forum. I might have closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but the actual close was reasonable too. And, given that there's WP:NPASR, the right thing to do here would be to just re-nominate it, rather than spend a week arguing about it here, so I suggest speedy-closing this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No. This is the right forum as it was closed and there is no other forum to discuss AfDs that are closed as "no consensus" against evidence that it should be deleted. If there is, show me where. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse as within discretion. I can't see the AfD "discussion" as having much value. The delete !vote words look to be in a random order but perhaps there's a bug in my browser. "No quorum" applies, as Roy helpfully suggests, and closing as "no consensus" is one of the options available to the closer in this situation. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn and softdelete. There was shallow consensus to delete here. More importantly the closer's rationale was invalid on its face. The state of the article isn't the issue. The question is whether adequate sources to prove notability of the subject actually exist. In AfDs the burden of proof in establishing that such sources exist rests on the editors making the "keep" argument. Nobody in the AfD actually attempted to make that argument. The closing admin's rationale is based purely on a speculation that sources establishing notability might exist. That's not a good enough reason for "no consensus" close in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The !vote following the nomination went against the grain of WP:NEXIST, coming across as an incomplete analysis that assessed notability upon sources in the article alone. Nowhere in my close did I base anything upon "speculation that sources establishing notability might exist". It's unclear how you came to this conclusion. Ultimately, the nomination rationale was fine, but the delete !vote following it did not carry much weight relative to this aspect of WP:N, because topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in an article. If the user simply stated that they performed source searches to better qualify the deletion rationale, I would have been fine with deleting the article. Again, I added a WP:NPASR clause to the close, so the article can be renominated at any time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument of the nominator and of the other AfD participant, User:SwisterTwister, was that the article did not present sufficient evidence of the subject's notability. In the absence of positive evidence to the country, this argument alone is sufficient to have the article deleted. (That is basically how PROD works). There is no formal obligation on the "delete" proponents to perform searches to see if sources establishing the subject's notability exist. The default presumption is that the subject is not notable, and it is up to the "keep" proponents to present positive evidence overcoming this presumption. So the "delete" proponents did do the minimum that was required from them here, while no "keep" arguments or evidence were presented. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nsk92: not the argument was not that the article did not present sufficient evidence, it was that there is an insufficient number of RSes. I provided the only RS that discusses the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. After a discussion relisted several times, with a unanimous "delete" consensus, I simply cannot endorse this. What we have here is a close that should have been a !vote.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion closures are not based upon an !vote count, they're based upon the strengths of arguments relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

When the headcount is 2-0, the 0 part does indeed make it unanimous, but it's hard to call the 2 part a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Whose arguments did you take into account?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:S Marshall, I would like to applaud the closing admin upholding the principle of NOTAVOTE in this extreme case of a unanimous agreement on extremely weak arguments to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The concern I have is that the close had no basis in the debate. As far as I can see the closer looked at the debate, rejected its conclusions and substituted his own opinion about what should be done. We've always taken a dim view of that.—S Marshall T/C 07:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOQUORUM seems to suggest the closer may base the close on the state of the article as well as that of the discussion. The specific close no consensus seems unobjectionable to me (can there really be said to have been a consensus to delete?) though I agree the rest of the closing rationale looks more like a !vote than advice on our guidelines and policies. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Relist. I didn't notice this when it was open. If I had, I would have !voted "keep" based on substantial coverage in The Washington Post [3] (which goes into some detail about Zipf's odd business model) and No Depression [4], plus the somewhat less thorough coverage in the Telegraph Herald [5], WAMU [6], Culture Collide [7],and Paste [8]. The "no consensus" close was reasonable under the circumstances (and a soft delete would have also been reasonable), but since there have now been objections I think the most efficient response would be to reopen the existing AfD, at which point I would add my keep !vote and other interested participants could contribute as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• I don't see why this has come here. The close was no-consensus. Anyone who thinks it should be deleted can simply start another AfD; anyone who thinks it should be kept can await such an AfD and !vote accordingly--or, much more effectively, add additional sourcing now. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse This was a WP:NOQUORUM situation, there being few comments (and I agree the second one is poor), and closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR) is within the closer's discretion. Simply start new AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to nominate for speedy but some other bureaucrat said it did not qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. Where the nomination statement is weak and suggests a lack of BEFORE and the only delete vote is a boilerplate, uninformed statement that admits to being based on the article's current sourcing rather than available sourcing, there is no quorum, and the closer deserves praise for remembering that consensus is not a vote. Rebbing 03:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse. I usually close these as soft delete (as the equivalent of an expired WP:PROD), but no consensus is a fair reading as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC).
• Endorse Soft-deleting at this point would be pointless. The "no consensus" close was explicitly done without prejudice; it can be renominated and cruise to a speedy keep to placate those who need procedure-for-the-sake-of-procedure. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think softdelete would have been a better outcome, but NC was also reasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Archive

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