Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\^talk 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Melbourne thunderstorm[edit]

Stubby article with no references whatsoever to indicate which storm this article is referring to. I almost speedy deleted this one but thought it best to bring to AfD in case there's more to this than meets the eye. - Longhair\^talk 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good call bringing this one to AfD Longhair for some necessary TLC and peer review. I had to do some reading up and searching into this, and I think it may be good enough to stay subject to improvements. In a media release by The Hon Dr Sharman Stone, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the storm in question was described as a 1 in 100 year event[1]. Also, some more information from a stormchaser group on the thunderstorm which includes details and copies of the BOM alerts[2][3].There's also purported to be two articles in The Age and one in The Herald Sun about the storm, which one of our University-related friends might be able to dig up the text of. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename - Meets WP:V, WP:N. I was there when it happened (the night of 2 December 2003 - I was in Melb on and off until the 19th) and remember the absolute *flood* of coverage (pardon the pun, especially with any unlucky Fairfield residents reading...) that followed it for weeks. Everyone was calling it a 1 in 100 year event at the time. Made for a pretty spectacular light show from the YHA in North Melbourne! Orderinchaos 02:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as per the Winchester and Orderinchaos. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to say delete, but the above comments suggested there were plenty of references, so I've rewritten the article and added several refs and an image. --Canley 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changes made by Canley and others. Fantastic effort! Zivko85 23:12, 4 June 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.