Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1913


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

January 1913

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is just an indiscriminate list of events without any structure or basis on which to decide what should be included. Is surely redundant to 1913. So its against NOT and CFORK. Spartaz Humbug! 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I just finished copy-editing this article, and I found it very interesting. It would be useful for researchers into this particular month (novelists, poets, historians, etc.). Yes, one would have to delete the chaff, but it is quite encyclopedic. Many encyclopedias have Almanac entries. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We have an almanac section too. Interesting and useful are not policy based arguments. What is the inclusion criteria for what is otherwise and indiscriminate collection of information? Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Question There are 225 articles in Category:Months in the 1900s. Since the outcome of this AfD will apply to the other 224, should they be nominated en masse? Braincricket (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides those 225 pages of events by month, there are another 168 ranging from November 1998 to September 2012, so the number would be 393. However, the first of the WP:FIVEPILLARS is that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", and one of the elements of an almanac or an encyclopedia yearbook is a chronology.  The objective in the 1900s articles is, and should be, to provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources, something that generally hasn't been the case in the year by year articles such as 1913.  Mandsford 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford. In addition, this is a WP:SPINOFF, an acceptable type of forking. If month articles were merged into their respective year, the thing would be absurdly long. And I don't think it's redundant to 1913. That article has two entries for January, neither of which overlap with those in January 1913. Braincricket (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:5, point 1. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain what the inclusion standard is for this page to avoid it being an indiscrimate collection of information. Spartaz Humbug! 12:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that these chronology articles are potential magnets for inane spam. I'm not sure if there's an existing policy on what can be included, but I'll suggest one now. Every entry must have a citation. I've also been looking for old AfD discussions in the hope that they'll provide some insight. So far, I've found September 1900, March 1 – March 31, and August 1, 2003 – August 31, 2003. Braincricket (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There isn't a big consensus over this matter, although I believe the consensus is presumed when you see the immense categories like Category:Months in the 1900s. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I was wondering about voting the other way, but you convince me. This is much better referenced than the January sections of 1913.  Category:Months in the 1900s if properly populated would be over-large for convenience.  I would suggest that the proper parents would be Category:Months in the 1910s, leaving the present parent for 1900-1909.  When I fiorst worked on WP, all the dates were linked, which really went rather too far, but a diary of events in a given month is useful.  Yes, this is a form of historic journalism contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and there are contemporary newspapers available on-line, but this is a convenient way of picking out the principal events of the period.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.