Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invest 90L (February 2012)

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 delete. Wifione ^Message 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invest 90L (February 2012)

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

Significant breach of WP:OR along with much opinion sprinkled in. Officially, these types of storms (Invests) are any area of disturbed weather that have potential to develop into a tropical or subtropical cyclone. This particular storm was a bit out of season but not unprecedented. It was never considered tropical (main WP:OR breach) and recently dissipated after only minor impacts. WP:OR breach #2 and #3 is within the impact and records: "Although it was not an official tropical cyclone (it might be identified in post-season analysis), it's notable for being only the second system of it's type to form in February, the other was the 1952 Groundhog Day tropical storm." - There is no source to back up either statement made here. Overall, the system is non-notable and does not warrant an article nor does it warrant merger into the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season (since it was not officially classified a tropical cyclone by the National Hurricane Center). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since it was not a tropical cyclone, it should be treated as a generic meteorological entity. It did not cause enough impact to warrant an article on "February 2012 Florida floods". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a major impact, therefore, it does not require its own article. Plus not recognized as a cyclone. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2012 Atlantic hurricane season - worth a brief mention in the season article, I believe, but absolutley not notable enough for a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can add a single sentence about this system to the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season article at most. Crystal-ball arguments such as "Although it was not an official tropical cyclone (it might be identified in post-season analysis)" make for an extremely tenuous claim to notability. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The chances this system will be recognized as a TC after the fact are either slim or none, though slim has already left town. There was a disturbance noted by NHC in February 1989. While it has been unusual for NHC to write tropical disturbance statements/special tropical weather outlooks in February, it has happenned before. Besides, how is most of this information ever going to be able to be sourced? Until the storm wallet scanning finishes (which is on hold due to federal government budget issues) what I said can't even be sourced. It was very brave to create this article in the first place...the editors' enthusiasm should not be squelched. Merely redirected. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no picture, and it wasn't even classified. Certainly doesn't deserve it's own page. I think Tropical Storm 01M does though. WreckEmUp (talk)

Delete per nom. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Single event with no lasting news impact. Git2010 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2012 (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.