This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Judith Brett is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really this entry should be nominated for deletion. It's not at all clear that the subject is noteworthy. Gumsaint (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page doesn't provide any supporting evidence as to why the subject is noteworthy. It's not important enough to engage in an extended contest with other editors over but why anyone would argue for its support is a mystery to me. Disputing a 'prod' by saying 'needs work' is obviously a problem. Any page deletion could be rejected on the basis of it 'needs work'. That is not helpful. This sort of poorly supported page brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Simply having a published list of works is not a sufficient reason for an entry. The subject appears to be a minor ranking academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumsaint (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the deprod was that google scholar shows well cited works (over 200 for some) which is a major notability test for academics, if there were low cites I wouldn't have deprodded. The comment needs work was just an acknowledgement that improvement was needed,thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs improvement and has for some time but no one is prepared to do it. It should be deleted. Biographies of living persons should have a secondary source attesting to the subject's importance which is not the same as simply the terms of their employment. Gumsaint (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=small}