See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road/alternative version

What does this have to do with whether or not the article should be deleted or kept? This text does not make clear the rationale involved. This seems better for the talk page of the article instead of a deletion/keep rationale. I do see a number of book sources, a number of newspaper sources, sources from an extended period of time. These all support notability being met. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHale (talk • contribs) 07:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ruining this, I have undone your changes. Have you actually looked at any of these sources? The number of sources doesn't really matter if the quality and depth isn't there. Fram (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that PigsontheWing has twice moved the new version, once because it shouldn't "congest a talk page" and once because the name of the subpage wasn't "NPOV". The page presented is not an "alternative version", it is a version with all rubbish and errors removed, something none of the "keepers" seems to want to invest any energy on, preferring to move subpages of closed AfDs instead. It's so nice when people get their priorities right. Fram (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move this

This is a content discussion. It belongs on the talk page of the article. I decided I'd post here instead of just moving it myself or closing this as a malformed AfD. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does posting something on the talk page of an AfD make it a "malformed AfD"? And since when is "content" no longer relevant for an AfD? Fram (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)My bad, didn't notice it was a talk page. Content in the article is relevant, but this will just be swept under the mat now that the AfD is closed. I think you do yourself and the article a favour by posting this to the talk page of it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, just a misunderstanding. Yes, if it had been an AfD instead of a talk:AfD, you would have been totally correct indeed. I may repost this at the article talk page, just waiting for a few things first. Fram (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a /sandbox sub page, and don't congest a talk page, as you did here. I've made a sub-page in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Congest a talk page" which was empty and for an AfD that is for now closed? Right... Fram (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]