Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searles Valley Minerals Inc.

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 Keep B1atv 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

Searles Valley Minerals Inc.

Contested prod. A ninety year old company and now subsid. No indication of why the company is notable beyond being the largest employer in a town of 1800. The only returns from Google news are about a lake on their land, not the company, and it appears that even press releases from the numerous changes of hand have not been covered. Beyond that there appear to be no reliable sources. Nuttah68 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom and WP:CORP. The sunder king 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WP:PERNOM within a minute of the AfD creation an no research whatsoever? --Oakshade 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to suggest? I seen the nomination on recent changes. Please keep the comments out I have been here a few months afterall. The sunder king 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM is considered part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I don't think one minute within a creation of an AfD is nearly enough time to properly research and analyze an article's inclusion standards, particularly one with so many references that at least a few of them would take several minutes just to read. The article itself takes more than a minute to read. --Oakshade 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "A ninety year old company and now subsid" is not a reason to delete an article. An historic company with a long history in the Mojove Desert and owner of the Trona Railway. Besides the references already in the article, the history of this company is also included in this Los Angeles Daily News article [1]. It's why I created the article. --Oakshade 15:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, the total lack of evidence of meeting WP:CORP is. A mention of the company in an article about Trona, even if it were included in the article, does not strengthen the case. Nuttah68 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to false comment - It's multiple in depth histories of this company, not just a single or passing "mention" or "directory listings" as defined as trivial by WP:CORP. You're losing credibility by misrepresenting the reliable sources having written about the history this company. Besides, almost the entire article is referenced by reliable sources. (Perhaps you feel the Searles Valley Historical Society is unreliable.) --Oakshade 16:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please assume good faith and leave out the attacks on other editors. The references currently in the article are a) a local history society, b) a newspaper article about Trona and c) a page from the Bureau Of Land Management website. Any editor choosing to make a comment at this AfD can read them for themselves. Nuttah68 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Trona and the in depth history of this company. Your "mention" stipulation is completely not based on reality. Local History societies are not unreliable as their publications are the result of extremely heavy research. Most people find the writings of a historical society very reliable over an anon Wikipedia editor. --Oakshade 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And those references are there for all to see and come to their own conclusions. I still fail to see why you feel the need to attack anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of them? Nuttah68 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misrepresenting the facts and that needs to be pointed out. Just found another article that writes in depth about this company [2]. Care to revise your "a mention" statement or are you going to continue to insist giving false information? --Oakshade 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, read what I wrote, or do you claim that this is about the company? I'll repeat my statement for you with explanation. I do not believe that the mention of the company in the article about Trona (the newspaper article linked to here) establishes notabilty for the company. I do not believe that the mention at the Bureau Of Land Management, again, establishes notability. Whilst I'm sure that the local history societies accounts are accurate, I do not believe that that alone establishes notability. Finally, I do not believe the three taken together establish notability. You obviously differ in your opinion, as may others, but I'll ask again, please AGF and cut out the attacks. Nuttah68 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Continuation of discussion) - Nuttah68, the coverage in The Daily Independant [3] (which so far you have completely ignored) and Los Angeles Daily News are not just "mentions" of this company. That is what you are completely making up. They are in depth secondary coverage per WP:CORP. Whe you say the company is simply "mentioned" in those articles, you are simply flat out wrong. --Oakshade 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update, yet another in depth article about this company has been found [4]. --Oakshade 19:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Sunder King. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:CORP satisfied although barely. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - Two more articles that have in depth about this company have been added to the article.[5] [6]. --Oakshade 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade, plus the fact that there's more info in the article on this company, than the railroad company it owns/owned. ----DanTD 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that most of the sources, while certainly reliable, are mostly trivial and useful only as references for facts documented in the article. The L.A. piece certainly seems in depth enough to easily meet the minimums of WP:CORP, however. I don't see anything what-so-ever that is promotional or non-neutral in the article. Kuru ^talk 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the "nationwide recognition and an award for its innovative solvent extraction process to recover boric acid and potassium sulfate from weak brines" is enough to establish notability. — Music Maker 5376 20:40, 22 October 2007 (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.