Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000–2001 fires in the Western United States


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

2000–2001 fires in the Western United States

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a article that is primarily un-sourced original research βcommand 08:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The text is not specific to these fires and could be about any fire that has happened in the past or will happen in the future. Not encyclopedic. (I'm also open to merging anything salvageable into Wildfire if it can be sourced) - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless the article can be sourced and expanded tremendously. Hairy  Perry  16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: References are provided at the bottom of the article, they just aren't included as in-line citations. Could someone check those references and determine the article's accuracy? Everyking (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Newsweek article is available online. The 2000-2002 Forest Fires in the Western United States has a preview on Google Books. -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the strength of those sources, I'd say this is a clear keep. Everyking (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Meets WP:V and WP:N. -Atmoz (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The information can probably all be found in one news article. Dream Focus (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete For being an orphaned series, uncited, too narrow and too broad. It is too narrow in that in focuses only on two years in one specific region of the world. It is too broad in that the wording includes all fires. I believe that any vote with the belief that it can just be cleaned up is a bad idea. The core problem is that this is the only article on a fire season we have. If specific years are to be given articles, it needs to be systematic and not willy nilly. Until more information is provided to warrant such specific articles, information should be grouped into something like History of wildfires in the United States--Remurmur (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to go for a keep here, per Everyking. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - too poorly sourced, non-specific, unclear evidence of notability. -- Biruitorul Talk 16:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We keep articles on hurricane seasons, why should this be deleted? They're both real-world disasters that draw news coverage in RS'es.  Suggest the authors of this article look to the hurricane seasons as an example of how this information should be sourced and presented. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2008 (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.