Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Fischer (judge)


 * 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   Yash  t  101   16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Alfred Fischer (judge)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG Gsingh (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn, a reference was found indicating notability, thereby article meets WP:GNG Gsingh (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A judge at this level ("The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) is one of the five federal supreme courts of Germany. It is the court of the last resort for generally all cases of administrative law, mainly disputes between citizens and the state. It hears appeals from the Oberverwaltungsgerichte, or Superior Administrative Courts, which, in turn, are the courts of appeals for decisions of the Verwaltungsgerichte (Administrative Courts).) is usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:I could not find any webpages referring to Alfred Fischer as a Federal Court Judge, other than copies of the Wikipedia article, so the claim is unverifiable as of now. Gsingh (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Eastmain. To address Gsingh's concern, I've now added his published obtuary as a reference in the article. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain. Persuasive case. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2012 (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.