Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Colorado: A–F

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 no consensus‎. Several editors hold that this discussion is out of process and that more discussion needs to be had to merge lists affected by this proposal. I don't think the "out of process" charge is entirely fair to Buaidh, given the level of their contributions to the article and their prior attempts to solicit input on these pages, but it is clear that a proposal to delete will not be moving forward at this time, and that discussion should be held at a talk page to figure out how to proceed with the maintenance of these lists. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Colorado: A–F[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This list has been replaced by a merged and updated List of populated places in Colorado. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/2023-08-08 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Colorado#Proposed_merger.

This deletion request includes:

Buaidh talk e-mail 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe List of Places in Colorado: A-F, G-O, P-Z, are all very helpful and used frequently by my family when researching a name or place. The List of Populated Places in Colorado is not as complete and does not provide the information we need. It is helpful to find the information in one article as opposed to trying to find various other articles which may or may not show up in searches. Auldwhispers (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your merger discussion had no one participating but you. You have to tag the articles you wish to merge with a merge discussion template, then discuss things properly. We have Category:Lists of populated places in the United States by state and far more states listed in the Category:Lists of places in the United States by state. Need a standard naming convention. Why only list the populated places? Is there another place for places that are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but aren't populated? Before you decided to erase it without discussion(I have you, nominate it properly) Template:List of places in Colorado header shows
more than 1,500 ghost towns – List of ghost towns in Colorado
more than 1,500 historic places – List of National Register of Historic Places in Colorado
more than 340 mountain passes – List of mountain passes of Colorado
more than 2,800 mountain peaks – List of mountain peaks of Colorado
273 municipalities – List of municipalities in Colorado
more than 400 post offices – List of post offices in Colorado
more than 600 protected areas – List of protected areas of Colorado

So we need those listed somewhere. Dream Focus 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 20:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. It does seem like the nominator hastily sped forward the merge process above when they were the only one to comment on it. So, it feels as if they went around the standard process (30 days discussion for merging articles, tagging them, etc.). Therefore, it seems abhorrent to reduce 1500 historical but non-populated places to ashes due to a lack of commentary on the merge discussion. Something I'll also mention, is that some of the places on this list probably don't belong, but AfD is not cleanup. This article meets WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - procedural keep per Dream Focus and Conyo14.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’ve maintained both the List of places in Colorado and the List of populated places in Colorado for many years with over 8,000 edits. It has become very burdensome to keep these two lists in synch. These lists comprise the following items:
- List of places in Colorado – partial list of more than 4,000 miscellaneous places, not currently up to date, 945,633 bytes.
- List of populated places in Colorado – list of 3,825 populated places recently reformatted and updated from the Geographic Names Information System and nine Wikipedia lists, 904,754 bytes.

We can only reasonably support one list of this size. The List of populated places in Colorado is comprehensive, but the List of places in Colorado is rather arbitrary. The GNIS lists 23,775 non-populated places in Colorado. If someone is interested in non-populated places they can reference the following three lists not included in the populated places:

We can update the List of places in Colorado with items from the List of populated places in Colorado and the above three lists, but I’m not sure that mountains, passes, and parks really fit in. I’m the coordinator for Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado and the meta:Wikimedians of Colorado User Group and I’ve asked for input or help with this project without response. I’m concerned that if we don’t merge these two lists soon, they will both die of entropy. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 01:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good enough reason to proceed with a rather large transaction of articles. I mean, if you suggest lack of entropy (notability is not temporary) over a few articles that fit NLIST, then a merge is a fine thing to do, but not something you can go ahead with because you're the only one managing these articles. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly broad list that is redundant to several others. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When List of populated places in Colorado: A–F was created, did anyone go through to verify that these are indeed populated places? None of them are sourced, and I suspect the list was built from GNIS which is known to mislabel things. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlthewave: I recently cross-checked that all places in the List of populated places in Colorado are, or have been, populated. The List of places in Colorado: A–F has not been recently checked. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - May I ask what you cross-checked them against? The redlinked entries have no obvious sourcing, and many of the bluelinked articles are sourced only to GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dlthewave: All of the places in the List of populated places in Colorado have been verified with at least one reference and usually several. Some of these places may need to be relabeled. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 13:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Not ready for mainspace, lacks inline citations to verify content. I'm finding a number of mislabeled "unincorporated communities" as would be expected for a list copied from GNIS. Unsourced entries need to be gone through one-by-one and corroborated with reliable sources; even many of the bluelinked entries do not point to any sourcing beyond GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlthewave: Please let me know which places are improperly labeled in either list. Thanks, Buaidh talk e-mail 01:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the ones that I found but the majority of the "unincorporated community" entries are unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 02:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dlthewave: Please stop deleting places from the List of populated places in Colorado unless you know what you are doing. Most of the places you deleted had post offices at one time. The places you deleted may merely need to be relabeled as former post offices. Please check with the List of post offices in Colorado. I've verified all of the post offices against the references listed. I would appreciate your help in relabeling rather than deleting places. Thank you, Buaidh talk e-mail 13:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the discussion #Proposed merger had no responses, for something obviously controversial that's not acceptable to go ahead with mergeing, and off-wiki meetups are also not acceptable when it comes to determining controversial merges and as has been said above, this lists more than populated places it includes mountain passes etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge "Places" is obviously not the same as "populated places", and it's reasonable to keep a list of populated places together in one place under the appropriate name, and geographic features should be listed in their own lists as they are. It should then be cleaned up to be only the notable populated places, and not non-notable post offices and names scraped from the GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: The terms "settlement" and "populated place" mean the same thing, although "populated place" is the more common term in the U.S. Any list that contains formerly populated or extinct settlements should make that clear in the lede. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this nomination is flawed. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles clearly meet WP:CLN/AOAL for reader navigation aids. I think the templates are a matter for WP:TFD, so no opinion on them. // Timothy :: talk 12:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.