Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 Agoura-Malibu Firestorm

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The result was keep (withdrawn). Secret ^account 00:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1978 Agoura-Malibu Firestorm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search for Agoura Malibu Firestorm 1978 finds only one book (Environmental history review: EHR : a publication of the American ...: Volume 19) - only snippet view available; can't see whether this was arson or not, can't find other references anywhere for this. The arson claim could be a hoax. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a Google Books search with terms 1978 Agoura Malibu fire without quotes. Many books and magazines discuss this devastating fire though not using the exact wording of the title. Though my time is limited at the moment, I will search for the best sources later and add them to the article. Brownie points for for any editor who beats me to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added four sources to the article, expanded it and trimmed POV material. The arson claim is not a hoax, but I removed details about the arsonist that I couldn't verify. This was a really big and dangerous fire and there were many burning in the region at the same time. It was discussed in the Los Angeles Times several times over the fifteen years that followed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added sources from cullen328,expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom - if that's OK? and woo-hooo - what a great job on source-hunting and revamping :D (>**)> (hugz to Cullen) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:18, 24 September 2011 (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.