Talk:Judith Brett

Nomination for deletion
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)