Deletion of January 1913

Comment: per Mandsford. In addition, this is a , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: 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  and there are contemporary newspapers available on-line, but this is a convenient way of picking out the principal events of the period
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)