Deletion of Tropical cyclones in 2010 (2nd nomination)

Comment: You could argue that anything "could" be improved through editing. Correcting a spelling error is improving an article. So, it's way to vague a standard to keep everything due to. Plus, I've never seen anywhere that  comes before or cancels out . The question is, is this the subject of the article notable, and from some research I'd say no. The cyclones I looked into that are included in the article didn't have their own articles. Treat it like a glorified list article, would a list article with no (or practically zero) blue links be notable enough to pass an AfD? I don't think so. More so in this case because it's not a list article and therefore requires encyclopedic content about the cyclones. Not just a glorified list in picture table form. Why drafty though? I think this could be worth having once articles are created for the individual cyclones. So, I have no problem with it being drafted or re-recreated later if (and only if) that happens. But in the meantime, there shouldn't be an article about various subjects where those subjects aren't notable themselves and don't have their own articles. You can't make otherwise non-notable subjects in a topic category notable just by combining them into a single article with a graph
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:GNG)