Wikipedia:Deletion review

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)

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

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. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  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).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer 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 closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  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.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

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=
}} ~~~~
2.

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 page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. 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=
}} ~~~~
3.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2021 January 21}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

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=2021 January 21}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 January 21|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • 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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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 everyone. 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.

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.)

Speedy closes

It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.

  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

21 January 2021

20 January 2021

Nova Firoze

Nova Firoze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The result for this was delete. Participants do not consider that this actress has had the level of coverage to meet the relevant notability guidelines. But I think it was a wrong decision, because the actress is one of the popular actresses in Bangladesh. Received significant awards for acting and model.Finally the article is removed, my request is to reconsider the removal of the article.Alamgir64 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Closing admin comment - The consensus of all participants other than the article creator was very clear in the discussion. The closing decision was unambiguous, that this actress has not received enough coverage to demonstrate notability. In the closing statement, I already offered to restore it to draftspace if there's a serious argument that more sources exist - which, to be honest, is generous given it's already been draftified once and moved back by the same editor. Instead, this DRV has now been opened to revisit a decision that I don't think really could have been made any other way. ~ mazca talk 16:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The community's very clear decision was to delete that article, as Mazca correctly identified.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

16 January 2021

Gagan Gupta

Gagan Gupta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted under WP:G11, but in my opinion, it was not blatantly promotional. The speedy deletion was also contested by two other users. I asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and to submit it to AfD if they still believe it should be deleted, but they appear to not be interested. Un assiolo (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • endorse deletion it was a promotional resume masquerading as an article. CUPIDICAE💕 19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Rastapeuplulos was the creator of the article and may be interested in the discussion. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. At the beginning, the article was a translation of the french article, and as the french version was not good, the article needed a lot of work. The article was changed quickly after your comments. New sources were added, promotional part were deleted. I think it should be restored.Rastapeuplulos (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 06:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy. Perhaps there's some peacockery that could be pruned, but there's nothing wrong with a bio of a businessman who runs one of his country's largest employers that merely reports his significant business activities. Kardashians are the exception, not the model for biographies here. In addition, Praxidicae/CUPIDICAE improperly restored the validly removed speedy tag to the article, an abuse of process that should be summarily undone rather than ratified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn Speedy and send to AfD if really desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn, bad G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn Speedy According to my answer to User:Un assiolo. I think that the article should be restored. Rastapeuplulos (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy, The subject seems legitimate to me. There are quite a lot of sources.Wik8dude (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That is a deeply promotional article in many places, and if restored here, should be thoroughly rewritten and possibly AfD'ed.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    • There is an abundance of sources. It will be hard to work out which are independent. I don't expect it to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn G11 - The article has serious neutrality issues, but that is not in itself a reason for speedy deletion either as G11 or for any other speedy reason. Whether the article should be deleted in an AFD is not the issue in this DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad speedy, the article's been around for almost 6 years and there is inevitably a neutral version to revert to in the history. Overturn and optionally send to AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Indrajaalam

Indrajaalam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article can be recreated using these sources:

I would have done that, but since it was deleted as part of an AfD, I came here as I did for Krishna Kuchela. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The general rule at REFUND is to refer requests for draftification of AfDed articles to the deleting admin, assuming they're still active and still an admin. You don't have to go to DRV to get something draftified unless either the deleting admin objects or the person who reviews the REFUND request objects. I don't see any problem with restoring this one though. Hut 8.5 20:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose needs improvement to clarify that DRV should not be the first port of call for a wish to re-create after a deletion. Before coming to DRV, ask the deleting admin about draftification or userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Either Relist or Allow Re-Creation. Since the article was very recently deleted after minimal participation, relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

15 January 2021

Miss Grand

Miss Grand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was improperly tagged and deleted as G4, even though it was entirely newly created and can't have borne any resemblance to an article, about a different subject, which had been deleted in 2017 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (3rd nomination). I've brought this up with the deleting admin DGG, who moved an unrelated draft over the deleted article and reverted it back to draft, without restoring the article in question. It's been over ten days since the deletion, and seeing as it currently seems inconvenient for him to divert attention to the issue, I've informed him that I'm bringing this to DRV instead. Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Temp undeleted for DRV - the new article is in the history of Miss Grand, the deleted version at Draft:Miss Grand WilyD 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Wait, no, the old version is at Miss_Grand_International - okay, I'll temp restore that too, so people can judge G4-ness. EITHER WAY, DELETE THAT WHEN THIS IS DONE WilyD 12:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to Overturn, undelete all and ask Paul 012 to see if he can fix the mess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse considering greater G4 leeway when the AfD was closed with a consensus of "delete. And WP:SALT". It is not the same page, and the author may justifiably feel aggrieved, but "repeatedly recreated" applies. Note also the existence of Draft:Miss Grand. I do not read the re-creations as overcoming the AfD decision.
However, there must be a way to try again after more than a year to challenge the old AfD decision. I suggest: (1) the patrolling admin may refer any G4-eligible page to AfD instead. Note that he did not. (2) Use WP:AfC, and consider advice at WP:THREE to enable timely efficient review. For further work on this, go to Draft:Miss Grand. Any discovered forks should be fixed by redirection, not deletion.
Another important consideration is that the topic and sources are a foreign language. Personally I would want, and I recommend, linking to an already existing native language Wikipedia article. If an en deleted topic is not notable in its native language, there is a heavy presumption against it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere at WP:CSD, nor does it appear to be in line with the guidance there that speedy deletions be done only "in the most obvious cases". In this case, the application appears to be in contravention to the spirit of G4, which is to prevent the community from having to go through the exact same discussion over the (more or less) exact same page. As I read it, the criterion is supposed to preclude re-creation of the content, not act as a ban on the subject. If it is standard practice to regard creation protection as making related pages eligible for CSD, this should be added as its own different criterion. (I notice that something along these lines has recently been proposed at WT:CSD, with some editors voicing concerns over the idea.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the specific suggestions, I don't currently plan to further work on the subject, and personally, I do not see the value of taking this through AfC, placing the burden on a single reviewer to weigh the status of an article against the spirit of the arguments from previous discussions. A new AfD would be preferable. Thai Wikipedia articles exist for Miss Grand Thailand (th:มิสแกรนด์ไทยแลนด์) and Miss Grand International (th:มิสแกรนด์อินเตอร์เนชันแนล), though not as a central overview (which I created with the expectation that the two subtopics would be redirected there, though Miss Grand Thailand has since separately been created, and I wouldn't object to an eventual merge somehow, if it is to be retained). Note also that I had notified Black Kite, one of the salting admins (but not the AfD closer, who is no longer active), of the page's creation, and requested re-creating the salted title as a redirect, which they did not object to. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul_012. "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere? That's because I only just made it up. There are many AfDs, many recreations, an explicit consensus to SALT, and the latest recreation looked like a Whac-A-Mole attempt at avoiding the SALT by using a different title. It is also a confusing mess to have multiple versions. Anyway, from you answer, it seems to me that you are sensible, and I think we should overturn the G4 deletion and let you fix everything up as you see fit. Redirect the lower quality copies to the best version in mainspace, and explicitly link to the Thai version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • When Paul asked me about this, I suggested Draft:Miss Grand as a suitable way to start dealing with this material. As he wasn't satisfied, and as I have not yet figured out anything better, he brought this here. I don't think the history of the decisions matter--the goal is to find a way towards an article if an article is possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The sourcing currently at Draft:Miss Grand is all non-independent, and useless for moving forward with.
The sourcing at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Grand&oldid=997876075 is superior, although in Thai. I suggest working from that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn the G4 speedy. We are discussing the article currently temporarily undeleted which was speedied as Miss Grand. This is completely different from Draft:Miss Grand which looks to me somewhat similar to the undeleted version of what was last deleted by AFD. So what is in draft is a bit like the old deleted article and not the new one. Or maybe I'm confused? G4 seems utterly inappropriate: the content is completely different and the references are (completely?) different. Even the topic is somewhat different: a national event where the old article was about a strongly associated international event. SmokeyJoe's arguments might be highly persuasive at WP:Village pump (policy), less so at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion, but are not at all convincing that this speedy deletion was within policy or even close to it. Thincat (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • This is why I come back to these discussions. My first reading was confused on a few things, including what exactly was G4-ed. That said, I do think G4 has more leeway when there was a consensus to SALT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Just to note that sometimes when an article fails to be deleted at AFD in spite of many attempts, it is salted when at last a deletion is successful.[1] Thincat (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I think that what SmokeyJoe observes is true, but question whether it should be. In theory, every G4 should be considered independently, and the SALTing of a target should not play into such a decision. In practice, it's hard to distinguish why someone is working around a SALTed title to put a new article in place. Experienced Wikipedians will tend to ask for an un-SALTing, while both inexperienced Wikipedians and sockpuppets/SPAs will not. Experienced admins do tend to jump to G4 a bit too hastily, and I suspect for relatively benign ABF reasons--that is, assuming sockpuppetry rather than inexperience. Regardless, in this case Overturn speedy and send to whatever other process, if any, is desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: If overturned, please also restore the talk page and the redirect from Miss Grand International (the version created 31 December 2020[2]). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:CUeject (closed)

Mark Simmons (comedian)

Mark Simmons (comedian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Comedian is definitely notable now, having been on numerous TV panel shows since the deletion. TomJ1991 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • You'd really need to find and present some third party sources from quality publishers to demonstrate he now meets our usual inclusion criterion to make much headway, eh? WilyD 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse but allow draftifying if desired. The XfD was properly closed and no sources are presented here, so restoring straight to mainspace is not going to happen but if someone wants to work on improving it in draftspace then I don't see a reason not to allow that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The AfD is almost a year old. The subject is active and could well now be notable. If the comedian is "definitely notable", one should be definitely about to demonstrate this with two or three suitable sourced. Read the advice at WP:THREE and use WP:AfC. Start by requesting a WP:REFUND for Mark Simmons (comedian). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse and allow draft/re-creation per the above advice. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

14 January 2021

Dianne Morales

Dianne Morales (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The prior redirect result was proper at the time, as the subject did not then satisfy GNG. However, in the ensuing months, coverage has been such as to result in the subject now meeting GNG.

Thus, significant new information justifies recreating the deleted page--but in the form seen here. Which reflects the many RS articles devoted to coverage of the subject of the article. The subject has now received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.; 2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse Nothing in the previously recreated version] of Dianne Morales indicates that the subject has attracted more attention from significant sources. Per WP:NPOL, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. That would mean that Dianne Morales would need to meet WP:GNG by as an unelected political candidate who has never held office. Morales' campaign has received coverage from local sources (NY1, City & State NY, Bklyner, Gotham Gazette, Norwood News, BK Reader, News Break Brooklyn) and blogs (Human Services Council, BeLatina, Labyrinth (?)). National sources that cover Morales only mention her in the context of the broader mayoral election, which does not satisfy in-depth coverage. If she wins the incredibly crowded primary for 2021 New York City mayoral election, I support the recreation of her page, but not at this time. KidAd talk 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article satisfies the GNG. Because the topic has received significant coverage (addressing the topic directly and in detail) in reliable secondary sources (both reliable and WP notable, actually) that are independent of the subject. Including the non-exclusive 9-article list below. Beginning with 3 articles, devoted to the subject, by The New York Daily News, Politico, and The Hill. Some editors say "show me three articles" - well these would be them. Followed by other articles, also devoted to the candidate. By NY1, City & State, Norwood News, and the African-American oriented magazine The Root.
  1. Shahrigian, Shant (November 2, 2020). "Progressive mayoral candidate Dianne Morales wants to rewrite NYC's 'social contract'". The New York Daily News.
  2. Durkin, Erin (November 19, 2020). "Dianne Morales officially kicks off mayoral campaign". Politico.
  3. Williams, Jordan (December 3, 2020). "NYC mayoral contender challenges New York Times for defining candidacy by marijuana use". The Hill
  4. Gloria Pazmino (November 12, 2020). "Dianne Morales Touts 'Lived Experience'". NY1.
  5. "She Helped House New Yorkers. Now Dianne Morales Is Running for Mayor". NY1, October 9, 2020.
  6. Jeff Coltin (December 1, 2020). "Dianne Morales' NYC mayoral campaign theme: 'power to the people'". City & State.
  7. Jeff Coltin (August 5, 2019). "Dianne Morales wants to be New York City's first female mayor". City & State.
  8. David Cruz (August 29, 2019). "Bronx-Based Nonprofit Director Launches Mayoral Bid". Norwood News.
  9. Terrell Jermaine Starr (January 11, 2021). "Mayoral Candidate Dianne Morales Doesn't Want to Return New York City Back to 'Normal'". The Root.

Furthermore, the editor's assertion that "Nothing in the previously recreated version of Dianne Morales indicates that the subject has attracted more attention from significant sources" mistates the rule. The GNG test is significant coverage in "reliable sources." Which we have.

And the editor's assertion that there has been no increase is simply incorrect. We indeed obviously have an increase in the amount of coverage by RSs. The prior AfD closed on September 13. Simply look at all the refs of articles that came out after that. Seven of the above nine articles, for example.

The editor also confuses why this subject is notable. It is only suggested that she is notable under GNG. Which she is. It is irrelevant whether or not she - in addition - is notable under NPOL.

And GNG cares not a bit about whether she has held any office or not, or whether she will win, or whether her field is crowded. Which much of the editor's focus seems to be. That is all irrelevant.

Finally, the editor ignores the full articles devoted to her in the national publications The New York Daily News, Politico, and The Hill. While focusing on the more NY State and NY City focuses on her. Certainly, we have those as well, for example NY1, City & State, and Norwood News. However, those are all fine publications, all reliable sources as required by GNG, and taken together all these articles satisfy GNG.2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse as a valid close and the right close, with the following points:
      • Allow creation of a new draft in review, but not direct creation in article space.
      • Recognize that publicity resulting from a campaign for public office is usually downgraded in the context of general notability.
      • A history merge is required if the article is accepted.
      • If the community doesn't like the downgrading of election publicity as counting toward GNG, an RFC is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please not make stuff up? There is not one word in the GNG that "downgrades" election-related coverage, and discussions such as those surrounding Theresa Greenfield show that there is not consensus support for it. Responsible editors should not advance such positions as though they are policy- or guideline-based. They are not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - I am not making anything up. I am stating what is the usual application, with exceptions, of general notability to political candidates. Tf you are saying that this downgrading is a non-policy-based result, then I agree, but that should be discussed elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A standard that is not based in policy or guideline is just made up. A "non-policy-based result" is by definition inappropriate and cannot legitimately be supported. Your endorsement makes no sense and should be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

NIDA (political party) (closed)


Recent discussions

13 January 2021

12 January 2021

Ripple Music

Ripple Music (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After weeks of AfD discussion and re-opening, the company's notability was not sufficiently established. Despite this, the discussion was closed with a "Keep" result by a non-administrator. Law15outof48 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Overturn. After weeks of discussion on the AfD page and being re-opened once, the company's notability failed to be established per WP:ORIGCRIT. WP:GNG: the article should be deleted. Law15outof48 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn (ie reopen). This should never have been closed by a non-admin. Several of the keep votes look potentially suspect. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn - If I had !voted, I may have voted keep, there are claims the label has a significant influence on a music genre. But I haven't verified those claims. All that is beside the point, I do not see a consensus for "keep", and any such close would need an good explanation, of which there is none. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I saw the opened discussion that was 8 days older. I counted the the keep votes (4) and delete votes (1) and hence closed the discussion as keep due to the leading number of keep votes. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:VOTE: "most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." Secondly, the discussion actually had 4 'delete's and 5 'keep's (the 6th 'keep' was from someone who voted twice). You treated the discussion as a vote, tallied the votes incorrectly, and closed the discussion with a 'Keep' result, all with zero explanation. That's not how this works. Law15outof48 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist Four of those participating don't have many edits. The second edit one ever made was to nominate the article for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Law15outof48 Anyway this non-admin closure should not have been done since people disagree on the outcome. The rules for non-admin closure should be more clear, just flat out say "you can't do this unless everyone but the nominator says to keep it". Only one blue link in the list of bands with anything released by this label so probably not notable. If someone wanted to contact them on their official website and ask if they got any coverage in any legitimate media, that might help find something to see if they pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist as a bad non-admin closure. The rules on non-administrative closures are incomprehensible, and should be reworked. Maybe the advice to non-admins who want to be useful on deletion discussions would be to clarify that non-admins should be welcome to do the Relisting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi folks, I voted twice on the Ripple page -- not intentionally trying to mess with the process, didn't realize each Keep was a "vote." Then when I saw the message to strike though one of them, there was already a direction not to further edit that page. I've written and edited a few articles in the past but this is my first time participating in a deletion discussion. Thanks for your patience! Hopefully people can look at the big picture and determine some clearer guidelines for record label notability as part of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels. Glad to see the Ripple page remains, as a consensus to delete has not been established. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no-consensus There is not a consensus to keep nor is there a consensus for deletion. In addition, the close is a bad non-admin closure. --Enos733 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would have closed as no-consensus, but that's also a not-delete result. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Relist. I have read the other arguments presented here and have changed my opinion. Relisting this is the best option given the circumstances. Law15outof48 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse Endorse the original closing (Keep or non-delete) with comment that it might have had a bad non-admin closure. The page needs fixing not deletion WP:DINC. The central points asserted by the user requesting deletion have been addressed on page and in discussion. Evaluation should consider possibility or potential for WP:VOA in contribution pattern of nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Law15outof48.Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment A facsimile of the following comment was added then removed from original discussion. KEEP The Ripple Music article describes actively engaged recorded music label, publisher, distributor, and cultural entity in music genre and subgenre operating for over 10 years representing broad roster of active musicians and significant catalog of recordings. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/artist/ripple-music-mn0002560446 Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on Discogs.com https://www.discogs.com/label/209142-Ripple-Music. WP:MUSIC indicates that many artists in repertoire would meet notable criteria, whether or not they themselves are represented with Wikipedia articles or entries. There is limited discussion indicating how to assess Notability for smaller and independent record labels and music publishers as culturally significant. Wikipedia Notability guidelines should not unintentionally bias toward "major" international corporate entities or certain "major" institutions. Discussion appears to contain Moving Goalposts when presented with notable references by invoking WP:INHERITORG, WP:ITSOLD, & WP:LOCALFAME to refute notability. These can continue to be leveraged to argumentum ad infinitum as invoked here, they would also apply to most genre or regional music organizations that exist to promote culture and artists. The page needs fixing not deletion. (I am newbe, apologies if awkward. If this does not belong here, please advise. Thanks.) Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the reverted NAC at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ripple_Music&oldid=999933871
Allow re-listing at AfD, but demand a carefully written nomination statement that summarises the previous AfD and this DRV. The previous AfD is too much a mess to re-open. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

EFounders

EFounders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Minimal participation with 1 nomination, 1 lean delete, 2 keeps. Closed as keep. Closer stated they closed based on a headcount and has since realized closing it as keep was not very accurate. Closer lacks technical capacity (despite some instructions offered) to relist or close as non-consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • It says "(non-admin closure)". I don't think they can do that unless everyone agrees. The "leaning delete" person didn't bold their vote or specifically say delete. Leaning sounds like "considering" which in context of them stating they were unsure about things, makes sense. Need to ask them to clarify their vote. If you get an administrator to close this it'll just be "no consensus" more likely than not. Dream Focus 17:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that this should have been closed as no consensus and that a lean delete isn't the same as an actual delete (regardless of whether someone bolds or not). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • endorse Not a great discussion but I think most people would have closed it that way. NC would also probably be within discretion. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    A three or four person discussion where there isn't a clear consensus doesn't strike me as something where most people would have closed that way - or at least I wouldn't if I were closing it. As noted above in response to DF, I do think this is a NC on both consensus and due to a lack of participation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    No consensus is the same as keep, the article is not deleted. So I don't see why you wish to bring the case here. The outcome will be the same. Dream Focus 17:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse The choice to close as keep is reasonable (as would have been a close of no-consensus). The discussion was relisted twice. --Enos733 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Could have been no-consensus, but it's the same outcome really. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Should have been no consensus, after weighting the votes. The practical effect of this is to enable an early relist, which a "keep" outcome precludes.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed as "delete". Read advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha

Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted even though there were third party independent sources cited It is a more than century old organization and certainly worth encyopedic Jethwarp (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Could we get a temp. undelete please? Hobit (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse, I had participated in the discussion. The AfD Nominator had raised the concern appropriately and the AfD participants rightly pointed that WP:ORGCRIT was not meeting. The closure is justified. Good close by Sandstein. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The deletion nomination did talk about self-published sources and a COI primary author; but then it shot itself in the foot with its references to "unacceptable unencyclopaedic fonts" and its telling admission that the nominator had tried to clean it up but been reverted. I see some red flags for the misuse of AfD for cleanup. What might in fact be needed here is not deletion, but for a sysop to step in and restore order. Before we go there, though, the concerns about sources need input from a previously uninvolved, trusted Hindi speaker in my view.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)ou
  • Comment Thank you S Marshall for your perfect reading of situation and red flag for misuse of AfD for clean-up. The problem here was not with article's worthiness it was due to some ip and user Tathya the Fact trying to promote his personal vendetaa on this page , whom I got immediately blocked [3] and also informed the participants in Afd. Instead of dealing with vandals and PoV pushers by Admin intervention, the nominator took AfD route, which is inappropriate and not proper. Wikipedia has policy on how to check and deal with vandals and POV pushers. AfD route to deal with this is misuse of AfD process, as you correctly pointed out. Regards Jethwarp (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Jethwarp, you have created this article that was judged as failing WP:ORGCRIT by the community. Where are the third party sources you claim to exist? Instead of resolving the actual WP:ORGCRIT concern you are now attacking the nomination on technicalities. Considering that this article is about an advocacy group, can you please clarify your Conflict of Interest with this group? are you a member of this group or from Khsatriya?--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:59, 14 January2021 (UTC)
  • Let other editors decide about the cited sources and I don't have any COI interest in the aricle. Anyone can check the page history to see what are cited sources and which editors could have CoI intrest in the page. Jethwarp (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In fact I just got curious about using of AfD route by Heba Aisha and found out to my surprise that user is after all articles related to named Rajput, Kshatriya and even Jats. Just check the articles user has been able to via delete AfD procees[4] one example is Sodha it was deleted thru Afd where as independent sources are available [5] (talk)
Jethwarp, all these article which I tagged were one or two line article with almost no source and some of them were already tagged that they may not meet WP:GNG for years.example: [6] Noone tried to improve them and I believe that this was because, they failed to possess required number of third party independent sources.About the page we are discussing here,: I didn't object after you provided explaination in delition discussion.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, I would like to clarify, if you have checked the pages nominated by me. You would be knowing that I have also nominated many movie related articles too. And, those who commented in the AFD deletion discussion expressed their view after checking whether the source exist or not.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I also possess the same concern that Walrus Ji possess, most of the pages you created are related to a particular social group or notable personalities associated with them I.e Rajput. Example: the pages of many of the landlords who you edit regularly also belong to same social group and this organization was also of the same social group. I would like to tag admin Bishonen, about the disruption that has happened in recent times with pages related to this caste. The pages which got deleted faces the same problems example Rajput weeding, admins can check.It was with one source and the whole commentary was nothing but a WP:POV violating castecruft. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
the Wikipedia deletion policy clearly states that if no one is improving article that cannot be reason to nominate articles for deletion. If reliable third party sources are there one should try to improve it. just in case of Sodha you should in this particular case should have opted for AfD process diligently. thanks and regards and please don't discuss on my edits and personal attacks, I am here to save this particular article and not saying all your nomination were right or wrong. Jethwarp (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I said that because you also accused me of taking Afd route and not warning the disruptive user, but [7], you should have checked that I warned him three times. Also, I still believe that most of the hindi sources you are keeping are not independent and anyhow related to that organization possessing COI related materials. As I couldn't see enough quality newspapers itself in the source list, those flashing there were just poor materials of dubious quality news websites. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Requesting speedy close according to the Clause 8 of WP:DRVPURPOSE Jethwarp, This is not the page to attack Heba Aisha, you can take your grievance to Heba Aisha's talk page. If you read the definition , it says Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions;. Instead you have started this for all the wrong reasons listed st WP:DRVPURPOSE (1) because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome. (2) to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion; (3) to argue technicalities (4) to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). Walrus Ji (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The red flag were first raised by S Marshall and As I realized that arguments are drifting away from main cause I remarked that I am here to save this page and would like to stick onwards only for this deletion review in future also Walrus Ji you first deviated from Deletion Review Clause 8 by asking me questions on my affliations etc. ThanksJethwarp (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Read advice at WP:THREE for how to contest a decision to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment - would request all to please check the cited sources all are independent third party reliable sources cited in the article:-

1. Singh, Ujjwal Kumar (2007). The State, Democracy and Anti-Terror Laws in India By Ujjwal Kumar Singh - the book mentions how the organization took up fight against Mayawati government for her targeting of Rajput and Thakur castes

2. भारत रत्न महामना. बालमुकुन्द पाण्डेय, देवेन्द्र कुमार शर्मा · 2015. 2015. p. 85. - the book on Madan Mohan Malviya clearly states about the Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha and it's meet of 1922 under chairmanship Nahar Singh of Shahpura and it's pioneering role in bringing back Muslim Rajputs in to Hindu Rajput fold. The book also mentions Mahatma Gandhi was averse to this idea but the organization was blessed by Malaviyaji, who later passed similar resolution Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

3. Government Gazette: The United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Year 1910. p. 144 mentions about the organization and it's meetings etc

Cited here only above 3, Any one can verify the other cited sources non- are self published sources or advocacy group links

Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I looked at the reference 1 posted above. In this 350 page book, this organisation has only a single mention in a line saying that it wrote letters to the legislators. This is not what Significant coverage is supposed to mean. It appears that Jethwarp has some competency issues in understanding WP:Significant Coverage. In any case, if this is the #1 source in the list of top 3 sources then this only proves the non notability of this org. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It is also known as All India Kshatriya Mahasabha google book search for same [8] Jethwarp (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Check link [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] and [17] and [18] for example.

Most importantly right from 1910 till date you can find different google books of every decade mentioning about the organization. Jethwarp (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Jethwarp, I have checked Reference 1 with your new search string. The alt name has zero mention in reference 1. I also clicked and reviewed all the links of google hits that you have provided above. They are trivial mentions. I could not even find one source that could convince me to vote a Keep. While we need to find multiple as WP:ORGCRIT demands. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
With due respect your opinion is already known. Let other knowledgeable editors check the links. You have already voted in AfD and saying same thing again, with regards. Jethwarp (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

10 January 2021

Ashli Babbitt (closed)

8 January 2021

7 January 2021

22 December 2020

Category:Fictional armoured fighting vehicles (closed)

Bling Bling (group)

Bling Bling (group) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It have mentioned in some newspaper in google, see here StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 10:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional link: [20], [21]. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 03:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Additional reason: It is meeting the WP:BAND#C9 and WP:BAND#C10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I) (talkcontribs) 10:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - My usual thinking is that any questioned A7 or G11 can always go to AFD. An AFD is no more disruptive than a one-week DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we get a temp undelete please? Thank you, Hobit (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    • And so, it is done WilyD 21:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the A7. It is also copyright violation of [22], so a G12 also. endorse speedy. Hobit (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Fandom is licensed by CC-BY-SA, so it's not G12-able. Licence attribution can be fixed. WilyD 11:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Yep, I knew is was CC-BY-SA, but for whatever bizarre reason didn't consider the lack of a cite could be trivially repaired. -3 internet points for hobit. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The links found by following the nom’s link do not give evidence of Wikipedia-notability. See advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe: A7 criteria mean band or artists does not have enough claim of significance. Singificance is lower requirement of notable. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 04:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    The DRV nom's statement did not mention that, they only provided a link to junk sources, which is a waste of our time. If these sources are the best, it will surely be deleted at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm the nominator of this DRV and also the creator of this article. I have put some other link to show it's eligible to have article. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 03:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn A7 - In my opinion, it doesn't satisfy musical notability, but it clears the low bar of a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    • What claim are you seeing as meeting WP:CCS? Hobit (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse A7 deletion. Contains no claim of significance; being a girl group is not one. Sandstein 11:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that being signed to a 3 year-old label counts as a claim of significance. The sources appear to be largely (entirely?) rehashed PR bits, but I can't read either language so am relying on machine translations. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Being signed to a three-year-old label by itself does not count as a claim of significance. Being signed to a three-year-old label that has also signed 4MEN, VIBE, Ben, Dongjun, and Kasper is a claim of significance enough to pass the low bar set by {{db-a7}}.

While some of the sources contain "rehashed PR bits", they also contain independent analysis and reviews from the journalists. From the Top Daily article written by 이승훈 about Bling Bling's appearance on the Mnet TV channel (translated from Korean to English using Google Translate): "In the broadcast, Bling Bling drew attention not only with the perfect performance, but also with the watery visuals and sword group dance. In addition to a song with a strong charm, he drew attention by decorating the stage with a special white costume."

From The Chosun Ilbo article written by 이승훈 about a Bling Bling "personal concept teaser video" featuring Ayami (translated from Korean to English using Google Translate): "In the released video, Ayami fired a charismatic, intense glance and overwhelmed her gaze from the beginning. Next, a soft yet powerful performance was presented, further amplifying the expectation for this stage."

There is enough analysis in the reliable sources that a reasonable case can be made for Bling Bling's passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This assessment of notability is irrelevant here. DRV is not AfD round 2. We do not address the article's merits here, but only the merits of the decision to delete, which was correct based on the contents of the article. Sandstein 12:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I addressed why I believe the low bar of {{db-a7}} does not apply to the deleted article (being signed by Major9 which has signed multiple notable musicians is a claim of significance) and further expanded on what I would say about the sources at an AfD if one is created. When there is disagreement over whether {{db-a7}} applies, that indicates that speedy deletion was not uncontroversial. Cunard (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse A7 does not require the deletion to be uncontroversial, only that the article itself has failed to substantiate its implicit claim of the subject's significance. My understanding is that this criterion implies that such substantiation is also not forthcoming, so that the article will continue to lack any rationale for its inclusion in the encyclopedia indefinitely. To say that rationale is forthcoming at this time appears to be WP:CRYSTAL, implying this group will have success or impact that is still to be determined. It is entirely possible such evidence, in its most bare minimum form, has arrived recently, but likely did not exist when the article was first created. In that case, I would suggest to the author to take this to WP:AFC and present as thorough a case as possible for having an article on this subject on Wikipedia. As the page has been restored from a deletion and is not currently available for editing, it is not possible for the author to insert evidence of notability that did not exist in the article's first incarnation, so I would like to gently suggest saving the article's current content elsewhere, possibly in a draft, and pursuing AFC as mentioned before, allowing this process to close as endorsing A7 and deleting the article as it currently exists. Any worthwhile article is worth the work it takes to write it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    I have copy it to my draft, you may see User:J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I)/sandbox. StayC, BAE173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 09:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn A7 because a credible claim of significance doesn't even have to be one which would plausibly ever reach N, and this one arguably does if given a bit more secondary support. Jclemens (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Reason (software) (closed)

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec