Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Edward Damer


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

T. Edward Damer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It's not clear to me how he qualifies per WP:PROF. The article is mostly a duplication of the information about his text book, which has its own article. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Although his textbook is at 6th ed, that in itself doesn't mean much if you know how Cengage works; it's common to even have text books in double digits edition number there. I note that Damer is not mentioned in the SEP entry on fallacies/informal logic, so his textbook doesn't seem particularly notable. I also didn't encounter his name while reading a few other research-type books on fallacies, which are listed at Fallacy. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on his home page, which I've added to the article, he seems to have received a number of teaching awards, and to have held a number of administrative positions. I'm not sure that puts him over the WP:PROF bar. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

-- I've linked the notable authors. Kahane is not notable for much else besides his textbook, but the other two are noted for their other writings (as well). Damer doesn't seem to rise to same level of notability either way just yet. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google shows that his book is widely used as a college textbook. I think that may be enough for WP:PROF, and while the teaching awards probably aren't enough on their own they save this from being a case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only get some 3 pages of google hits there. You'd expect a textbook to have some market share, or else it would not have more than one edition. I don't think this is sufficient for a biography here; I don't see that as "significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." By your standard most programming books on a popular language like Python or Java, which publish more than one edition, entitle the authors to Wikipdia biography. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that informal logic, which what his textbook is about/for, is the most popular philosophy topic for undergraduates in North America to take a class in (according to one of the researchers in the area, see article for ref). There are at least three other textbooks from Cengage alone that compete here, and two of them are historically noted (see the history section at informal logic):
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.