Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Destination: Dewsbury

Davey, AfC is broken because it attracts newcomers to create drafts there, where they receive zero collaborative support, and experience overly highbar reviews. Eventually they can learn to just write in mainspace, as was done for the vast majority of articles. They thus history-split their drafting. I decidedly disagree with deleting the pre-spit versions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah right well I've never done any AFC work so I have no idea how it works really, I guess in all fairness this place is more suited to those who can actually write large articles if that makes sense, I mean I've never written an article and wouldn't try because to be blunt I'd be hopeless at it, If you want afc changed then it may be best to try & get something changed although I have no idea what, Anyway thanks, Happy editing, – Davey 2010 Talk 23:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Davey. I am not very good at reading rhetoric or sarcasm, and am honestly unsure whether you are using any.
 * "AfC is broken" is an easy slogan, but it is not just me. I would not even call me involved, just an observer, commentator, peanut gallery.
 * See ACTRIAL, and tell me if there is not reason to be annoyed.
 * See Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC, and see the massive amount of effort some people are putting into (as I observe, my words) smoothing the cracks of a broken process. Maybe "broken" is the wrong word because it never did work.  I mean no disrespect to the volunteers at AfC, contributing huge amounts of time trying to make it work, but I have become convinced that AfC is an attractor of net-negative contributions.  The amount of drive-by spam/junk overwhelms the few useful contributions per day.
 * So, AfC is broken, it is producing time wasting administrative processes, and I don't support MfD becoming the AfC refuse processing unit. I would rather delete (actually, archive and lock) all of DraftSpace today, and enable ACTRIAL.
 * It is odd that we seem to argue, given that I count zero disagreements on any issue of substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)