Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Quick (1809-1894)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Quick (1809-1894)

Joseph Quick (1809-1894) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Search on ("Joseph Quick" 1809) indicates that this article may be a copyvio, also unsourced. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Keep. Sourcing is no problem - Google finds his obituary, and a search on the specific phrasing doesn't suggest copyvio to me. The Dutch Wikipedia also has a sourced entry. However, though his work was quite wide-ranging, his notability seems a bit borderline: he isn't in the ODNB and didn't merit a Times obit. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I've added a ref, and corrected the death date (his obit is clear that it was 1894 - the 1910 was probably his son). Hope this hasn't screwed up the AFD linking. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable (at least, its not clear here). ShivaeVolved 16:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He should at least be notable for putting the water inlet above the place he died. That's quite a trick! Seriously, could use expanding, but seems notable to me. Mykej (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've just tidied it up and sourced it a bit ... --Paularblaster (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Very nice work! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, thanks! --Paularblaster (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep after revamp. ShivaeVolved 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Paularblaster's edits, notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice rework there, Paularblaster. Keep. Might consider moving it to Joseph Quick (engineer), or something, after the AFD closes - the dates in the title are offputting. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well done everyone who improved this article, which I agree could be renamed. Is there another Joseph Quick? If not why keep the dates in the title? It was civil engineers like this who helped the industrial revolution happen, they built the backbone of Britain, and by extension the modern industrial world, through their schemes and absolutely deserve to be remembered in any encyclopedia pretending to seriousness or comprehensivness. Nick mallory (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That'd make sense, though I don't know what his canonical name might be. This Joseph Quick and his son had a firm called Joseph Quick & Son, so "elder" and "younger" is a possibility (the Dutch Wikipedia calls this one Joseph Quick senior and his son JQ junior). But the elder's father was also called Joseph Quick, and all three were civil engineers... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That explains why it was created with the dates then! If they all had the same name and were all civil engineers the existing name makes sense after all. Nick mallory (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article seems to have had a major revamp, and all of my objections to deletion seemed to have been fixed, if no one objects I would like an admin to close this article debate as "Keep". VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 14:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
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.