Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Sarsfield Ford

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 no consensus to delete. I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction states: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability". For full disclosure, I wrote that passage. However, it applies reasonably well here. There is an absence of consensus to delete, and it is noted that this judge received at least some coverage for unusual cases presided over. I also note that his obituary was published in the Boston Globe, a paper from a state outside his own, which is of some significance. bd2412 T 01:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sarsfield Ford

[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)

Not really a notable judge. He purportedly (modified at 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)) served on the state Supreme Court... and yeah, no one really wrote anything about him. No significant coverage here, of his tenure before or during his stint on the state Supreme Court. More than half the judges on the Connecticut Supreme Court page rightly don't have an article, for reference. Any useful content could maybe be a minibio on that page, but most of what's here (especially before I took out the most egregiously irrelevant filler nonsense) is promotional puffery or other thoroughly routine coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE. He meets WP:JUDGE due to having "held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", specifically being a justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Other sources and references may also be able to help expand the article. I would also not call his date of death (which the nominator removed from the article), "egregiously irrelevant filler nonsense". Note that hypothetically, if "More than half the judges on the Connecticut Supreme Court page" didn't have an article, that does not necessarily mean that they are not notable. The statement by the nominator also appears to be false, as more than half of judges listed on the page Connecticut Supreme Court and on the page List of justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court currently have an article. MarkZusab (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the world needs to know he was a proud Irishman... I mean, maybe around this time of year, but really? That said, Show Don't Tell these heretofore unknown references exist. His death date was, in fact, still in the article, just once instead of twice. You cite a guideline, which is not a hard and fast rule for a reason; I would submit this is why, because there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect that the brief reference in one of the sources to the subject serving on the Connecticut Supreme Court was an error. That same source mentions when the subject became a judge of other courts, but not the state Supreme Court. I also note that the two other sources cited (obituaries) don't mention him being on the state Supreme Court, which one would think they would mention if it was actually true. More importantly, he doesn't appear on the list of justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court Historical Society web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Although some more sources have been added to the article, I am still not convinced that there is significant coverage to support the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have struck out my keep comment above after Metropolitan90 showed that Ford was likely never actually part of the Connecticut Supreme Court. If he had served on the Connecticut Supreme Court I would have kept my opinion as keep, but I have found no other sources that state that except for the brief reference Metropolitan90 mentioned. Possibly delete per WP:GNG and not meeting WP:JUDGE. MarkZusab (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ford served on several different Courts over his career. AFAIK, he was never a CSC Judge, but he did argue cases in front of the CSC when he was a lawyer. It also does not help searching that the various CT courts have been renamed (in some cases multiple times) since 1950, such as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors becoming the Connecticut Supreme Court in 1965. You can find it referred to as the "Connecticut Court of Errors" or just "the Court of Errors"" in some sources well into the 1970s. Markvs88 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Over the last ten days, the number of sources have doubled to 16, and they are from major news outlets. I ask you both to reconsider your votes. Markvs88 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was rather puzzled as to how a state supreme court judge could attract so little coverage - even in a state the size of Connecticut I would expect to see much more, especially as such judicial appointments are highly politicized in the US. Metropolitan90 has cured my puzzlement by noticing that the subject was not actually a supreme court judge. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOTICE: HEYMANN. I think that people got hung up on his unusual name in searching, because Google was pretty useless for that. The only reason I know who he was is because I'm a local. I've expanded the article with reliable sources and IMO he's a definite keep, especially because of his 1987 judgement of serial killer Michael Ross. It's also worth noting that Ford was most often a sentencing Judge, and so received less news coverage unless it was a notorious case. I'm very surprised to see that the Peeler case is wholly missing on the 'Pedia, I'll create it soon. I do agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights, the article as it stood was crufty and poorly sourced (and was likely edited by Ford's son). Markvs88 (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say I'm a local myself, neither here nor there but thought I'd mention it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started the G. Ford Saarfield Ford article. I take full responsibility for writing and putting the article online. I should had done a better job about researching the article. One comment-there is a wikiproject involving writing articles about the justices who served on the state supreme courts in the United States. Again my apology for writing the article and putting it online. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm somewhat on the fence on this one. Ford has received coverage due to his role in two very high profile death penalty cases in Connecticut. The first, Michael Ross was the first person executed in New England since 1960 and the last executed in Connecticut before the death penalty was abolished here. Ford also imposed a controversial life sentence on Russell Peeler when the jury deadlocked on a death sentence determination, a result that was first overturned and ultimately reimposed when the CT Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for existing death row inmates in 2015. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2019 (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.