Talk:Searles Valley Minerals

Absurd instant speedy deletion tag

When this article was created, it was a 3 sentence stub with no references. I was prepping the history section and references. WITHIN THREE MINUTES OF ITS CREATION IT WAS NOMINATED FOR SPEEDY DELETION. Not three months or three weeks, but THREE MINUTES. Lucky I was online when the speedy deletion tag was added so I could make the improvements and put the hangon tag on it. Let this stand as a classic example of deletionism for only the sake of deleting articles without any research or nor time for editors to make any improvements to an article.--Oakshade 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, being the largest employer in Trona and owning the Trona Railway is an assertion of notability. --Oakshade 04:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree there are those here that love to delete without posting warnings on the talk page first, it is a shame. That said, the user's sandbox is the place to start articles and improve them before making them, not on a real page. "3 sentence stub with no references" is not a page. Glad it all worked out. Telecine Guy (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Positive-only, semi-promotional POV in regards to Climate VISION partnership, awards/recognitions, school district funding royalties, employer status, etc...

Obviously this isn't a news site so not all of the below needs to be incorporated, and much of the below goes with the general territory of being an mining company, but some of the following have been settled on record and display that there are some historically significant safety & environmental issues.

No mention of the ongoing arsenic disputes, and past settlements, from employees. Numerous workers’ compensation cases are pending against SVM.
No mention of state assembly members calling for a state investigation into safety practices at SVM as last as mid-2008.
No mention of it being one of the state's largest industrial air polluters (Ranking in the top 10 in 2006).
No mention of of it's estimated $1.75 million settlement to the state for waste discharge "that may have contributed to detrimental responses in birds," that was generally accepted to be the largest of it's kind in many years.
No mention of state Fish and Game Department personnel advocating criminal charges for pollution relating to bird deaths.
No mention of $2 million to state and federal agencies to settle air, waste, wildlife and water-related problems

During the deletion discussion, Oakshade seems very adamant about citing reliable sources for keeping his article but fails to mention any of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.219.93 (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have objection to negative material as long as it's true, verified and cited. I didn't come across any during my edits, but anyone is free to add to it as long as it falls into our policies. --Oakshade (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some valid information suggested by the anonymous person at IP address 98.162.219.93 SwampT (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)