Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings

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 redirect‎ to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. There isn't clear consensus for a "not to be confused with" style merger, however the history remains if there's particular material worth adding. Star Mississippi 11:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings[edit]

[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)

See below TSventon (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPHB appears to be a limited company that existed between 2007-2011 run by a family in Scotland to raise money for their castle. [1] If there was an earlier organisation of the same name I cannot find any evidence of its existence or its relationship to the company. The article was created by Mph259, the initials of one of the people who ran the company - their only other contribution to Wikipedia was to Islam in Mexico and the same person in the company wrote a chapter in an academic book about Islam in Mexico, which is further evidence of their identity and an obvious conflict of interest. If you google "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings" it comes up with a few references, but they invariably seem to be confusing it with a different organisation Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. For example this article [2] says "The same belief in the vital importance of heritage protection also led to the founding of other organisations such as the Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings (SPAB)..." As they have specified SPAB they undoubtedly mean the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. An IP address (judging from contributions probably connected to Mph259) added that it was "noted" in a 1969 architectural journal - again it may be a case of confusion with SPAB (I don’t have access to the article). Apart from Mph259 and the IP address, no editors have contributed anything to the article except for formatting, punctuation, etc. and it gets virtually no hits and has no links from other articles, except user pages. It therefore seems to have been created as an advertisement for a short-lived company and has no notability. Johnbod removed the notification of deletion tag, suggesting a merger instead. However the company has no connection with The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), so there would be no content to merge. Southdevonian (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The natural confusion, which you mention, is enough to justify a couple of lines in a section at the bottom. If this supposed to be an Afd nom? this is not how you do them. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Johnbod. Yes, it is supposed to be an Afd nomination - the first time I have attempted one. Perhaps you can tell me where I have gone wrong? Southdevonian (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion , and look at a couple of other ones first. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read that page and obviously missed something - but thank you for your suggestion Johnbod. Southdevonian (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge instead to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings - a couple of lines at the bottom to avoid ongoing confusion. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of notability. I oppose the proposal to merge with an article about an unrelated organisation with a similar name. Maproom (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable organisation and oppose merge or redirect to SPAB which is notable but entirely different. Mccapra (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is deleted then the name needs to redirect to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, as a Google search finds that SPAB is often referred to (probably incorrectly) by this name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, and that is why a brief addition there is worthwhile. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings is also used as a translation of da:Foreningen til Gamle Bygningers Bevaring. TSventon (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems to be quite a large and old bygningsbevaringsforening (great word). That could go in the same section. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had a more thorough look at the Google results for "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings" and will revise what I said before about invariably confusing it with "Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings" (SPAB). Google comes up with about 48 results. Some of them are mirror sites of Wikipedia and Companies House or lists garnered from them, including an academic article that copies Wiki text. Some are translations of foreign organisations, for example a Dutch organisation. Some are local American organisations, for example, the Montachusett Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. Two refer to fictional characters. That leaves four certain or almost certain examples of confusion (including one gossip website), plus four probable or possible examples. I do not see that as enough to justify a redirect or mention in the article about SPAB. There is just one thing that still worries me - whether there ever existed a small local 19th-20th century organisation with the name "Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings", which might explain one of the possible examples of confusion. But there is nothing in the British Library Catalogue or the National Archives Catalogue. Southdevonian (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest version of the article begins The Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings was founded in 1858 in Leicestershire and was a pressure group established to oppose the demolition of the country house known as Danet's Hall by the Leicester Freehold Land Society. The group purchased the lordship of the manor and used this to exert pressure to attempt to prevent the hall's demolition, without success., which might be true, but is unsourced. TSventon (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge/Redirect to Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings or if straight out Deletion is called for here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same relisting comment as before. Just seeking a bit more clarity on ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's certainly an organisation with this name that precedes the 2007–2011 reincarnation. Found mentions in UK newspaper reports in the 1950s, 60s and 70s - but only mentions. One report referred to the Royal Society for the Preservation of Historic Buildings. The Journal of Architectural Education reference is a name check only of the earlier entity. Don't think the sourcing stands up to a merge as reliability is unclear and there's no indication the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings is related. Rupples (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, they very clearly aren't related to SPAB - nobody thinks that. This is more a "not to be confused with" thing. Perhaps its not necessary to be too precise about they are not to be confused with, beyond the name. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just located a reference that the Society was founded by John Ruskin in 1854 here: [3]. Rupples (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2023 (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.