User talk:Ivanvector/Drafts are cheap

Proposed Change
I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to propose a change to the essay:
 * Although it's expected that draft pages will eventually become Wikipedia articles, there is no deadline for drafts to be "ready", and nominating a draft page for deletion for the sole reason that it is old is unlikely to benefit the project. The exception to this are drafts that are enrolled in the Articles for Creation workflow. At the outset of the Articles for Creation process, editors are warned that they must continue to make effort to improve the draft otherwise it can be subject to deletion.   Please let me know if you have questions. Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion! I actually didn't know that was part of the AfC process. For the time being I'm going to leave the essay alone, it stands contrary to current consensus and I'm aware of that, but it expresses my opinion. I've yet to see any reasonable explanation why expedience need be part of this process, regardless if AfC is involved or not, and so my opinion remains that stale drafts should not be deleted. If deleting stale drafts is part of the AfC process then the process is flawed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why the land grabbers are trying to enlarge the mandate of G13 (which was specifically written to deal with low quality AfC drafts) to include all pages in the Draft namespace and Userspaces. Hasteur (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I somewhat agree with that. While I disagree that we should use G13 at all, as long as we are going to use it we ought to be consistent in its application, and if old drafts can be deleted because they're old, then all drafts should be subject to that criteria, regardless of what space they're in. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)