Hosta

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Colorado. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Colorado|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Colorado. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Colorado/archive

Jemiah Jefferson

Jemiah Jefferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject appears to fail both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Drmies offered this one a speedy nearly 13 years ago, which was contested by the creator. No apparent notability has emerged since that time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Colorado, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree that the article does not satisfy either WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. The references provided are insufficient to indicate notability, and a search for the subject in the news yields no results. In terms of reviews, there is: a review on a personal blog from 2021 and a forum post from 2007 and that is all. Manyyassin (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting, JFHJr. Fun fact: I once interviewed for a job at Reed, and one of the perks was that you could bring your dog to class. So that speedy template was removed a few times by the creator, as was a PROD by User:Karl 334. Yeah, I agree--there seems to be no proof of notability here. Delete. Oh, thank you Manyyassin for looking into it also--those things you uncovered don't help here. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What was the cat policy? AFAF. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An author, for sure, but other than confirming the publication of her books, all I found was one review in Publishers Weekly (not terribly enthusiastic) - and none in Kirkus, which reviews a heck of a lot of what gets published. She writes Horror and there is one paragraph (which I believe is a PR blurb because it seems familiar after checking book sales pages) in a book called "100+ Black Women in Horror". Unfortunately, it's a Lulu-published book. That's it. I can confirm that she works at Dark Horse Comics in Portland. Beyond that a few name-checks. Lamona (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lamona: I agree. I saw that review WP:BEFORE and I came to the same conclusion as to the publisher. It's a Who's Who from Lulu. It got my hopes up at the time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piñon, Montrose County

Piñon, Montrose County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Having reviewed the sources I generally rely on to determine if a Colorado place is real or formerly existed. In this case, there appears to be a location named "Piñon" in Montrose County, but it's not notable nor actually a town. No SIGCOV in RSs. Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: I still disagree with the editors arguing for a keep (and don't see enough of a distinction from Nucla), but there's no denying the good work they've done in adding material to the encyclopedia and no need for an 1AM AfD. I'll move the article from its current name to Piñon, Colorado per the general agreement over retaining the ñ, not including Colony, and following naming conventions in not referring to the county in the article name unless necessary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In a WP:BEFORE search I discovered that Pinon, Colorado was the second largest town in Montrose County, Colorado in the early 20th century, during its mining boom before it went bust. If you google it without the tilde over the first 'n' you will find a lot of hits that are significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in newspapers and books. It definitely meets WP:GNG. I've added four citations in reliable sources and expanded the article. This article on a western mining boomtown should be kept. Netherzone (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Netherzone: These sources seem to indicate that all material in this article should be merged to Nucla, Colorado, as the Pinon described in these sources became Nucla. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinon was it's own distinct town, there really is nothing between it an Nucla, which became much larger than Pinon over the years - they should be two separate articles. Netherzone (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an easy WP:BEFORE search shows it qualifies for a distinct article. The book Colorado Day by Day (p. 81) suggests Piñon was the original townsite, but then settlers moved 10 miles west to found Nucla. Also covered extensively by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer and Netherzone: If I withdrew the AfD and moved the article to Pinon Colony, Colorado (swapping the ñ for an n but including it as a bolded alternate spelling in the lead), would that be agreeable? I think that most of the content shows this is a continuous community with Nucla (as opposed to similar colonies like South Denver), but you two disagreeing inclines me towards retaining separate articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I don't agree with that. The content clearly shows that Pinon was a community 10 miles east of Nucla, and then was moved to Nucla after a canal was built. They are not the same place, and ghost towns are eligible for articles under NPLACE (and this passes GNG on its own as well.) Pinon Colony is not the WP:COMMONNAME and would make it more difficult for people to add sources to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Pbritti, I think it should remain as Pinon (not Pinon Colony) because all of the reliable newspaper and book references (many more than I added to the article) say Pinon or Piñon, and it is the official name for the town in these records and how it was known by locals in the past. @SportingFlyer is correct that Pinon is the common name. Pinon was a distinct town which is now a ghost town - a mining boomtown.

    BTW, I've spent time in this area on an extended photographic road trip, and went through Nucla, Natarita, Paradox, Uravan, Bedrock Slickrock, and drove through many of these tiny mining towns thruout Paradox Valley and Montrose County. Some still have derelict buildings, other were completely raised when the uranium mining boom occurred (the are is filled with vanadium). The Paradox Valley area has a fascinating history.

    The only change I would suggest is either to put "Montrose County" in parenthesis or "Montrose County, Colorado" in parentheses), but I'm not sure if that is standard formatting. If there is not another Pinon, Colorado then I think that should be the article name since that is how the other small towns or former towns mentioned above are formatted. Thank you for offering to withdrawing the AfD. Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Using the sources provided, I don't think we can definitively say a. Piñon was a distinct community from Nucla (differing only in about five miles of location and sharing both the same people, government, and buildings), b. that it is a ghost town, and c. that it clears GNG. The following is a review of sources in the article:

    • 1. RoadsideThoughts: Not strictly an RS and certainly fails to provide SIGCOV. However, it does give us a geolocation, so best to keep it for now.
    • 2. San Miguel Basin Forum, Jan 12, 2005: This is a local newspaper publishing someone's summary of what appears to be an older self-published book and a masters dissertation. It suggests Piñon was the second-largest town in Montrose County but then describes the same community, under the auspices of the Colorado Cooperative Company, establishing themselves as Nucla.
    • 3. The Co-operator: This is a 119-year-old primary source, so caution advised. However, page 8 suggests that the Piñon site was just a temporary location for the CCC community that established Nucla–further suggesting continuity between the communities.
    • 4. San Miguel Basin Forum, October 1, 1975: Describes Pinon as a landing place for the CCC before everyone and everything moved to the Nucla site.
    • 5. San Miguel Forum, July 7, 1994: Deferring mostly to the name "Pinon Colony", the article describes the people of the CCC community moving from the Pinon site to Nucla and taking their buildings with them.
    • 6. The Denver Public Library source explicitly describes Piñon as the same community as Nucla.
    • 7. Montrose Press, July 2, 2009: This is about a geological formation known as the Piñon Ridge and has nothing to do with the community. Should be removed.

    An additional source can be found here from the Montrose Press (using the incorrect spelling of "Pinion"). It establishes that the CCC camp was first named "Cottonwood Camp", then Pinon, then (when everything but the cemetery moved) Nucla. These are all the same community, moved repeatedly as artificial waterways were constructed. It is akin to how Dillon moved when the Dillon Reservoir was constructed: the same community, but a different spot. Notably, Piñon does not appear in comprehensive guides to Colorado ghost towns, like Guide to Colorado Ghost Towns and Mining Camps or Ghost Towns of the Colorado Rockies. As to name, Piñon, Colorado (with no mention of the county, as no other "Piñon" exists in Colorado) would be the correct name per the conventions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Those aren't all of the sources, though. As I've noted, Colorado Day by Day spends time on them as two separate communities. Nucla has an incorporation date in 1915 according to that book, so it's very clear they're distinct communities by that date alone, even though there is a mention of someone from Nucla in a 1909 government report. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the majority of sources specifically about the subject disagree with that book which isn't specifically about the subject, I would emphasize the Denver Public Library article as our best source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pbritti, I respect what you do here but I disagree with you that Pinon was a non-notable settlement. I stand behind my !vote to retain the article. I've continued to improve the article and added additional newspaper and book sources, and three historical photographs. I've also added content about the correlation between Nucla and Pinon from The Daily Sentinel [1]. You may find that the article now meets the Heyman Standard. Please consider having another look at it in its current state. The former settlement has a history that has encyclopedic value, even though it no longer exists and the population shifted to Nucla. Clearly it was a notable settlement, per the above and that it was the second most populous town in Montrose County. I feel strongly that its removal would not be an improvement to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per @Netherzone

TheNuggeteer (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]