Forum:A serious discussion and suggestion about QVFD
I have noticed more and more recently that the admins seem to be completely ignoring many deletion or ICU worthy articles on QVFD. For example this, this and this have all been on QVFD for almost a week, but nothing has been done about them (well, until now. I ICUed the first two and recommend speedy deletion of the last). There are a few of reasons why I think this might happen:
- QVFD is not being checked thoroughly enough or often enough.
- Most admins are deleting pages through Special:Newpages, and ignoring QVFD.
- Admins look at QVFD, see lots of redlinks, and assume it has been checked. This probably isn't true though - the pages were probably deleted through Special:Newpages.
My suggestion is that all admins who delete stuff should look at QVFD before Newpages, and check every page from at least the last two days. They should delete or ICU all pages requiring such an action, and put a strike through all pages that do not need deletion. Perhaps there should also be a place on QVFD where the admins can place a timestamp to show when it was last checked?
I personally think this will not require any more work than our current deletion system, but will decrease the number of articles that manage to avoid deletion. 
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to check qvfd every few days, back to the point where I checked it last, so the articles listed there do get seen eventually most of the time. If something gets missed, just list it again and nudge me or another admin to go through it. I'll try to check it more often, but striking out non-deleted ones might make it a bit too much effort. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:37, 31 May 2007
- I sort of agree with the strike throught thing, while it may be a bit more effort for people with already full plates, it would be helpful to know why some were deleted and some spared. I've watched pages survive QVFD that were obvious vanity in my eyes and just about burst blood vessels boggling at why it didnt get huffed too. It would just be useful to know why a page survived and what else could be done about it. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:13, 31 May 2007
- Vanity's not so easy to spot when you're just going through a list clicking things away. Try placing a vanity template on it; I think Template:vanity2 is the one for new(ish) pages. Unless it's not slanderous and actually funny, in which case whistle loudly, look in the other direction and walk away. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I sort of agree with the strike throught thing, while it may be a bit more effort for people with already full plates, it would be helpful to know why some were deleted and some spared. I've watched pages survive QVFD that were obvious vanity in my eyes and just about burst blood vessels boggling at why it didnt get huffed too. It would just be useful to know why a page survived and what else could be done about it. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talk DUN VoNSE arc2.0 08:13, 31 May 2007
What's QVFD? 
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 05/31 21:20
I dunno, Famine. I think it's a kind of disease you can get from online toilet seats. But I may be wrong. No, let me rephrase that: I know I am wrong, just bad and evil and wrong, but my hypothesis may also be wrong. I see someone put a template on the page:
► All articles below this point have been checked. ◄
► Make sure you check for orphaned talk / sub pages. ◄
That's a smart idea. Anything left below that line could go to VFD for a vote if the QVFD poster still thinks it's garbage, I suppose. ----OEJ 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Tis a good idea. Although one has to beware of recreates which spring back up out of the ashes again once below the line but still look QVFDed from "What links here". But I just think too much. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)