Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reed Brody

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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Brody[edit]

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

~~An horrible unbroken slab of text. The only and very slender evidence of notability has been added by another user.~~ I looked for copyvio but Google has not seen it elsewhere. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find to my horror that with this edit I had wiped out a lot of hard work by the originator. My humble apologies. I am almost inclined to withdraw this AfD but since the article suffered a speedy and restore, I think we had better discuss. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion the last section, Appearances in films and media, demonstrates in itself that he meets the GNG, so we don't need to parse whether his individual jobs meet any more specific standards; however, the UN positions are likely sufficient from that perspective, and he's all been over the news in multiple decades. There are sufficient citations to demonstrate notability, even though a few of them (his own publications and those of Human Rights Watch) don't help with that. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Yngvadottir that this seems to meet GNG. While I'd like to see less reliance on only the Human Rights Watch reports, there seems to be a bunch of sources that are independent and reliable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2013 (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.