The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADFM[edit]

ADFM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is the position of Assistant Divisional Financial Manager at the Eastern Railway Zone (India) of Indian Railways. It is a run-of-the-mill middle-management post in the divisions of the Eastern Railway zone. The post is mentioned on two web pages on the Eastern Railway web site; both pages are from the same division: Sealdah. Furthermore, neither the article on the Eastern Railway Zone nor the article on Sealdah mentions this position, nor, in fact, do they mention the operations of their accounts departments.

A Google search for AFDM mentions both the Association of Departments of Family Medicine and Association Démocratique des Femmes du Maroc (Democratic Association of Moroccan Women) twice before coming to the first item relating to the subject... which is the Wikipedia article under discussion. For this reason, I do not think a redirect to Eastern Railway Zone (India) or to Sealdah would be advisable.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sam for getting my attention. I tagged for speedy deletion, isn't that oppose to your suggestion ?? just kidding!! Well after reading your suggestion, I think It would be better If we can move this page to a title like List of positions in Indian Railways. And I think all the content in this article is not necessary like this section ADFM#Becoming_a_ADFM. And Roles here written ADFM#Duties also not necessary because we already got External Link for that. So in one page we will have all the positions. Lets see what others have got to say on this. -aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose that the article be moved to List of positions in Indian Railways and be edited and expanded under that title. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, if that is considerable. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 17:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to that. (Others might - you never know round here...) Peridon (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Other's might, but who knows. so what you suggest ?? aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this process is for, to determine what is to be done to the article. All suggestions are welcome, and will be evaluated. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as proposer. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's normally assumed... Peridon (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move so I propose to move then. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move I,the creator,have decided,that the article be moved and not deleted.Dipankan001 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this isn't a notable topic. Even if the proposed list were created, I wouldn't support moving much, if any, of this content to that article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with SamBlob and Imzadi1979. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A poorly written article that tells us far too much about the position and its perks, but there is no reason to believe that this is a notable position or important for the safety and operation of the railroad. Even mention in a list of positions is not likely to be worthwhile. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.