Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Areo Magazine

Continued discussion
I dream of horses, “we” is the nebulous concept of Wikipedians, with respect to how we deal with inept newcomers banging their heads and wasting our time in draftspace. I do think there is an undocumented consensus that we’ve established here in mfd discussions and at WT:AfC to follow a stepwise escalation pathway in response to poor drafts, to (1) DECLINE with encouragement to improve and resubmitted. An RfC, I think linked downstream of WP:DMFD established (2) that tendentious resubmission can/should be responded by MfD nomination. (3) if the draft is definitely hopeless, “improvement” to mainspace-worthy is not possible, then REJECT. (4) If the draft proponent continues after a REJECT, then bring it to MfD. Here, you REJECTED and then immediately nominated at MfD. Perhaps you consider it an especially egregious REJECTED draft? Or do you think all REJECTED drafts should be discussed for a week at MfD? I think this draft should be left to be deleted by the WP:G13 process. This gives the author six months to fully consider whether they have encountered an unreasonable reviewer, or whether the topic is simply not suitable. A shorter deadline doesn’t help anyone or any thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * [...]“we” is the nebulous concept of Wikipedians, with respect to how we deal with inept newcomers banging their heads and wasting our time in draftspace. This seems to discount, perhaps unintentionally, our individuality and differences of opinion. Ask ten Wikipedians the same question, and you'll find a hundred different opinions in their answers. When inept newcomers waste our time, they're also wasting their own. On occasion, I find it most kind to forcibly end the time sink. That's my opinion.
 * I do think there is an undocumented consensus that we’ve established here[...]' Undocumented consensus has a great potential to lack professionalism due to the potential of "biting" anyone new to reviewing at AfC, or to Wikipedia entirely. We ought to discourage this, not because people aren't well-intended when documentation slips their mind, but because of the impact of such forgetfulness. The consensus needs to be hashed out and communicated properly.
 * Here, you REJECTED and then immediately nominated at MfD. Perhaps you consider it an especially egregious REJECTED draft? Or do you think all REJECTED drafts should be discussed for a week at MfD? I don't appreciate this sentence. It has an odor of black-and-white thinking about it. I've only nominated one other draft for MfD, in spite of rejecting several drafts. I do find repeatedly declined drafts to be egregious, particularly if it has a "slight change then submit again" draft writer behind it, which is another reason. Perhaps I should've explained myself better.
 * I think this draft should be left to be deleted by the WP:G13 process. I'm too lazy to repeat myself, so just reread the last three sentences of the first paragraph I wrote. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this draft should be left to be deleted by the WP:G13 process. I'm too lazy to repeat myself, so just reread the last three sentences of the first paragraph I wrote. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)