Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Biggs


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

John B. Biggs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This living person appears to be marketing himself and his books. All other links to this page either do not contribute much to the original page, or appear to be his own theories (which are not necessarily notable enough). He does not seem to be notable enough to have his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linyuwei (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete: the nominator, User:Linyuwei, did not place an AfD template on the article itself and did not notify the article's creator. I have rectified both points and this AfD listing is currently complete. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think his small-press novels are enough for WP:AUTHOR, but his educational assessment research has collected enough citations and follow-on reserch to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just click the Google Scholar link and look at the citation counts: 1288, 1177, 381, 336, 310, 260, 646… (all in the field of education so must be the same guy). A highly-cited researcher by any reasonable standard, and the clearest past of WP:PROF #1 i've ever seen. Qwfp (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my view a clear pass of WP:Prof No. 4 - via the fact that Biggs's SOLO taxonomy is very widely cited in the teaching and learning field in UK Higher Education. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep. The nominator appears to suggest that this is a WP:COI or WP:AUTO case, but neither WP:COI nor WP:AUTO apply here. The article was created by User:Nesbit, who identifies himself at his userpage as John C. Nesbit, a professor at Simon Fraser University. A review of his CV shows no joint publications with Biggs, so I don't see how WP:COI could be applicable. The citability data mentioned by Qwfp is quite impressive; looks like enough to pass #1 and #4 in WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS h index = 20 giving a clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep Sufficient publications that people may well be interested in using WP to find out a little background information on the author of X. Since the (weak) biography serves a function, and since it does not seem to be actively selling books (no ISBN numbers is a good sign), no harm, no foul in inclusion. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I view ISBN as a matter of verifiability: from the ISBN one can easily link to Google books or worldcat and find out that the book exists and what libraries carry it. No links to Amazon is a good sign, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2010 (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.