Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 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 speedy keep. I take the blame for nominating this too quickly, I'll wait for it to develop and see what comes of it (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[2010 Melbourne thunderstorm]]=

:{{la|2010 Melbourne thunderstorm}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Melbourne thunderstorm}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|2010 Melbourne thunderstorm}})

WP:NOTNEWS CTJF83 chat 04:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Don't think I could form an opinion one way or another until the storms are over, if the hail truly is this huge and striking a major metro area chances are there might be fatalities. If that were the case, or the damage is severe enough I would say keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I must say, a subject's notability or any classification for inclusion here in WP shouldn't be based on damage or fatalities. The size of the hail alone is justification enough for inclusion, not to mention the cancellation of several major events, damage to key public buildings, evacuations and injuries. Above all else, Nick carson (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2010 (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.