Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Columbine, Arizona

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Columbine, Arizona

[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)

So here I have a puzzle. This is just north of the Columbine Work Station and consists of a loose cluster of similar bungalows. The NRHP submission says:"The present administrative site contains nine other buildings which are located outside the historic property boundary. [...] There is little information on these buildings. They were moved to the site or constructed after the Depression era." Given the lack of an overall map, it is not entirely clear that this refers to any of the buildings in the Old Columbine group. The site is extremely isolated and lies west of the Mt. Graham observatories. I wasa unable to find anything at all about the name. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per
WP:GEOLAND, the Geographic Names Information System (the only source cited in this article) ...do[es] not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and [is] also unreliable for "populated place" designation.. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I found a few sources saying it was a summer home area, usually in the context of nearby wildfires (such as this article) or as a reference point for something else (such as this article). It doesn't look like it was a year-round community, though, and there's nothing in the way of significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:29, 28 February 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.