Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mint, 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 redirect to Williamson, Arizona. $Salvio giuliano$ 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mint, 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)

Unclear what this is or was, but there's no evidence of a notable populated palce here. Name does not appear on topos until 2012. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Williamson, Arizona, since that's where Mint nominally is. But yeah Mint itself is not notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for redirects as an alternative to deletion, but I'm not sure that they're a good idea when the subject isn't mentioned in the target article and we have no way of verifying what it actually was. We don't normally have redirects for ranches, wells, stock tanks, road junctions, etc which this may well have been for all we know. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to redirect this article but the suggestion is contested so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, now that Williamson, Arizona has been revised (by me) to mention/cover it (along with the Williamson Valley vs. Mint Valley distinction), using a Mint Valley Community Organization webpage as source (which could be used also to develop the article further). I agree with dlthewave that a redirect target article should mention/cover the topic; it is no help to redirect something tiny to a topic article with scope way too large to even mention it. Here, however, Mint Valley was a similar or equal thing compared to Williamson Valley, and Williamson includes them both. I imagine there is a Mint River or arroyo or creek, corresponding to a Williamson river or arroyo or creek? Actually I was in Williamson once and somewhere in the general area I took a picture of a bridge over a dry arroyo; i think but am not sure that was actually in Williamson. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Yeah there was/is a "Mint Wash", i.e. an arroyo, per this Sharlot Hall Museum source. I'm adding a note about sources available at the Talk page of Williamson, Arizona article. And I confess I am unclear about Williams, Arizona vs. Williamson, Arizona. Williams is a town. Is Williamson a bigger area including it? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expansion, Doncram. I agree that it makes sense to cover this under either Williamson or Williamson Valley (Arizona). Looking at the map, Williams is a different town about 50 miles away near I-40. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (nom !vote) now that Mint Valley has been added to the Williamson article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 31 March 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.