Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Gibletts

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 merge to Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company. Shimeru 08:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Gibletts[edit]

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

This woman lost her eye in an unusual, but otherwise non-notable accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only notable for one event. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company as one of their notable events. Dengero (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Redirect Giblett v. Garrison is the case, I believe, and it may deserve an article as a staple of law school text books (at least it used to be)....Or redirect to Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company until someone (more knowledgeable than me) creates that article.... Vartanza (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: The article describes more than a newsworthy item. Instead it describes how injuries, particularly eye wounds were dealt with in regard to punishment and indemnities in the early part of the 20th century. It is a significant parameter for law students who are looking for background with regard to the loss of eyesight in terms of compensation for plaintiff's injuries.Robert (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2010 (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.