Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Huerfano


 * 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 Merged to related articles.  Sandstein   10:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fort Huerfano

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fort does not appear to meet notability requirements, such as WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. The source that is currently on the article is a personal site by a couple. I could find no books, historical newspaper articles, or web sources. I also tried local libraries, historical societies, etc. with no luck. The only thing I could find was one newspaper mention of a man going to Fort Huerfano, one of the last Army outposts, but it didn't say what state... and this was supposedly not an Army post. There was a Fort Stevens in Colorado on the Huerfano River, though, which is in a different area than Pueblo County, where Fort Huerfano was said to be located. It is not in the book of Colorado forts, which is quite extensive. –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge. Why not just merge the content, i.e. copy the two sentences and source, to its entry in List of forts in the United States.  And edit to express appropriate skepticism, as an "alleged" fort or whatever, if you like. --Doncram (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not certain that the fort actually existed. The sparse information from 2 personal websites may have confused the information with Fort Stevens in Huerfano County... or Fort Pueblo.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. I can be reasonably certain that the fort existed, since the one source remaining also lists Fort Stevens and Fort Pueblo in addition to Ft. Huerfano. The fact that sources are hard to come by is not shocking for an isolated fort that only existed for two years in the 1840s. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 02:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That source is a personal site. I can call the county historical society and/or library in the next couple of days and see if they have it on government maps, other early maps, or other sources for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I figured it out, 1) Huerfano County was one of the original counties, and was much larger than today's county - and it looks like the confluence of the Arkansas and Huerfano are in Huerfano county on the attached early Colorado map. 2) A map in one of the sources for Autobees shows it up by Avondale. The coordinates in the article show it on the Huerfano River just south of the Arkansas River. 3) Charles Autobees lived in Taos until 1853, but he did come through Colorado in 1847 for trade. 4) Fort Huerfano was supposedly an encampment built by Autobees in 1845 (I'll look to see if he came through in 1845, haven't seen it so far). ====> I think Fort Huerfano became the ranch/county seat Autobees in 1853. So, I just have to prove it. In that case, then it should likely need to merge to Autobees, Colorado, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Autobees was in Colorado in 1842 and 1844 either headed to or would have passed through the Pueblo area. More researching to do, but I think I am on to something, just have to put the pieces together. When Fort Huerfano is called an "encampment", I am betting it was pretty informal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Found it here: About 1845 Autobees had a small encampment on the Huerfano, which became the county seat of Huerfano County in 1861. This means that the personal site was right... and that this encampment became Autobees, Colorado.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I merged the content to Autobees, Colorado. It could also be merged to the List of forts in Colorado... and I would be happy to withdraw the nomination, but the resolution would be "keep", which is a bit confusing... unless there's a parameter to set "merge".–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ’’’Comment’’’ Thank you for figuring it out. And “Merge” is a regular outcome at AFD. Ready to be closed.—Doncram (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If I could set a parameter to merge with the withdrawal process, I would. I'll just wait til someone comes around and closes it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure what is going on here, although it seems a bit outside of process. Generally the steps seem to be that once everyone including the nom agrees, the AfD can be closed, and then the action is taken. In this case it looks like this article is already a redirect. It is fine to add the material to the new destination before an article is closed, but the edit summary should include mention that the material is coming from this article so that authorship can be mantained - the edit summary seemed to have been "add Fort Huerfano section" which I would have written as "add Fort Huerfano section based on discussion at Articles for deletion/Fort Huerfano". All told, there is no problem, I'm just noting that what has happened here is not exactly what I think is how things are usually done. In any case, the real reason I'm posting here is to note that I made an article for Charles Autobees, in case anyone here is interested in that page. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed. I am just working on a couple of things Forts in Colorado and creating a page with a list of forts of Colorado (to be similar to the CA list) and since it seemed to be a pretty clear outcome, it just worked out that way. Good point about the edit summary for the addition of the content. It was just one sentence that got moved over, I had started with new content, so it hadn't occurred to me. As an FYI, though, I did add a merge template on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Soudns good. I don't think anyone is too worked up over authorship concerns for merges, but it doesn't hurt to do one's best. Also, as note to the closer, I endorse a merge. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect -- The article has already been reduced to a redirect with an appropriate target. I see no objection to adding it to a list of forts, if that is indeed appropriate, on which I have no view.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has already been added to List of forts in Colorado and Forts in Colorado.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Close as merge? If I could close this myself / withdraw it as a merge, I would. Since there is no disagreement about merging this, and the merge is already done, is it possible to close this rather than having this discussion continue? There is no more information that I could find to build an article about the original encampment, which one source called "Fort Huerfano". Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2018 (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.