Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invest 99-L (August 2016)

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The result was withdrawn after being redirected to 2016 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Depression Nine. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 16:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invest 99-L (August 2016)[edit]

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

When has any Invest articles been discussed as being allowed to made? This is just a pointless page and also that invests are just disturbances with no significant media coverage, except by NHC and weather sites MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas this is very true, Invest 99L is different. It brought about much controversy among the weather community, and a huge difference between the GFS and ECMWF models. This is a disturbance with very significant media coverage, especially on The Weather Channel because of the nature of the storm and the way the two main models are so different. Back to media coverage, right now if you type Invest 99L into google; The Weather Channel (and Weather Underground), KATC, WKRG, WFLA, Brevard Times, WBRZ, WTSB, Fox 4, and NBC 2 all show up on the first page. This is more coverage than most storms get alone. INFOWeather1 (^talk/_contribs) 02:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The models are all over the place because it doesn't have a closed center to which the models can latch onto, that's why it's getting this coverage. Plus, there are many tropical storms/hurricanes that didn't get an article yet were covered largely by the media. I don't see why Invest 99L should be exempt from this statement. Therefore, the article is redundant. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this? It became a depression and I turned it into a redirect. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 28 August 2016 (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.