Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APCB

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. ✗plicit 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

APCB

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

APCB is a stub, but has little verifiable information, only one reference. Although the reference is cited 238 times, this seems to be the only verifiable reference regarding APCB. APCB has no apparent notability, simple Google search of 'APCB' doesn't bring up anything, neither does the English name. You have to search 'Association de Pilotage des Conférences B' to find their official website, which was last updated in 2013, and as far as I am aware, has not organized another conference since. Hadal1337 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith Z User Group. Excellent flag. APCB really does not need its own standalone article. It can have a short sub-section or mention on the Z User Group page, which it has essentially "combined with" since 2000. Then, after merging, if someone wants to redirect the Z User Group page to ABZ Conference (or whatever the appropriate target turns out to be), that may be for the best. Let me know if you need help. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, quote from Z User Group "From 2000, these became the ZB Conference (jointly with the B-Method, co-organized with APCB)". Doesn't infer to me that it has essentially "combined with", but instead just co-organizers. Also for the quote, there is no reference/citation to back up that claim so we're back to square one. Hadal1337 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference to APCB page – but yes, I don't think Z User Group is the final destination necessarily, but what I'm saying is that APCB should be merged with Z User Group as a first / interim step. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see where you're coming from, but I'm still leaning towards delete. I was actually planning on submitting an AfD for Z User Group due to it being created by the group chair, questionable official website, primary sources, not enough notability etc. I guess let's see the outcome of APCB first. Hadal1337 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK. Go ahead and delete APCB. It has almost no information, as you say in your original nomination, and it literally has had an average of 1 pageview per day since it was created. No one will miss it. I'm not sure what the fate of Z User Group should be, but that's a separate discussion. (There are many more BLP pages connected to the Z User Group page, etc.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a new section based on this article in the B-Method article is most appropriate in my view since APCB is/was intended as a support group for the B-Method. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, delete or redirect (to what target?)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the fact that most people on the Internet looking for APCB are looking for APCB Electronics in Thailand (or possibly other entities in the APCB Group) (per Google Trends). Hardly anyone is looking for "Association de Pilotage des Conférences B" which hasn't updated its own web site since 2013, unless they click on a blue link from one of the other Wikipedia pages that link to the current page (which we should un-redlink if this page is deleted). (Many of those pages are in need of some updating in general too.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for reasons stated in my original post. Hadal1337 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No duplicate !votes, please. ✗plicit 11:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot be verified --Bigneeerman (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (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.