Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Melbourne Thunderstorm

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. Merge possibilities can be discussed on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Melbourne Thunderstorm[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and I feel it doesn't meet WP:EVENT, just a run of the mill thunderstorm CTJF83 chat 06:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Extreme weather events in Melbourne article, the event was significant (IE: not your average thunderstorm, see both of the sources used in the article[1][2]) however it is too short for its own article for the time being. Bidgee (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It warrants a mention in Extreme weather events in Melbourne, but is not notable in itself. StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge claims to have to produced "the highest total since records began" of rain, but I think a merge would be good. fetchcomms☛ 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of room for expansion, the storm killed two people caused record rainfall and major damage to the area. Found some nice secondary sources too [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 2005 storm was a notable events, 120 mm of rain is a record of Melbourne.User:Lucifero4

Keep - I reiterate that 120mm of rain in Melbourne is a very large amount, additionally, two people died from the storms. For now the article should be kept. Before we delete articles, we should be creating better systems of classification for storms on WP, looking for ways to better include this information rather than exclude it, delete it and forget about it. Nick carson (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources given by Marcusmax above. Everyking (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (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.