Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Benson

: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The result was nomination withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

=[[Andrew Benson]]=

:{{la|Andrew Benson}} ([{{fullurl:Andrew Benson|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Benson}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Sources don't appear to indicate real notability. D.M.N. (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, thanks to those that have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Benson&diff=277487980&oldid=277434655 expanded the article] during the AFD process. D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: co-creator (and listed as such [http://books.google.com/books?id=qHCzrDHajtoC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=%22andrew+benson%22+plant&source=web&ots=lmTqjVYKgo&sig=c-PYTFEwUZEUsnupceTsaK7PhrI#PPA167,M1 here]) of the Calvin cycle, which was important enough in biochemistry to get Calvin a Nobel Prize? Works for me. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've fixed / shortened the link refs and I am now 99% sure this passes WP:ACADEMIC, most obviously #1. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment and Tentative Delete. I'm not persuaded by the arguments of Ironholds and Jarry1250. If Benson's contributions to the Calvin cycle were important enough to garner a Nobel Prize, why didn't he get a Nobel Prize? [http://books.google.com/books?id=qHCzrDHajtoC&pg=PA166#PPA166,M1 Footnote 1 in the article] certainly doesn't support WP:ACADEMIC. My opinion isn't written in stone, and I might change my vote if the article improves, but if the current article was the best that could be written, I would !vote Delete. THF (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • :Probably because Calvin did more work than any other individual, which would also explain why the most common name is the Calvin Cycle, rather than the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle. The Calvin-Benson-Bassham Cycle is used as the standard term [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JiuR_dmTIscC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=%22Calvin-Benson-Bassham+cycle%22&source=bl&ots=-qYok7bxad&sig=2SAFl4bfe7a13MGnTGij0GA0ToE&hl=en&ei=gEq9SbGUEOLEjAf62_COCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result here], [http://biocyc.org/META/NEW-IMAGE?type=PATHWAY&object=CALVIN-PWY here], [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZuZVZ4gziJ4C&pg=PA639&lpg=PA639&dq=%22Calvin-Benson-Bassham+cycle%22&source=bl&ots=gsIP-miF13&sig=ceaNtUekESzlOtMbTu_k9uAPrq8&hl=en&ei=y0q9SfGADtzFjAfbi-SUCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result here], [http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14441248 here] and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bRWd5bGhXM4C&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22Calvin-Benson-Bassham+cycle%22&source=bl&ots=fgtAAHJpOV&sig=bebSiYR6jMEdtX-8Z-kI17-BmcE&hl=en&ei=90q9Sd3uAqTEjAfmqMCrCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result here] if it helps, so referring to it as the Calvin-Benson-Bassham Cycle seems to be considered valid within academia, which says to me that Benson did contribute to it quite a bit whatever the Nobel people say. Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • ::Probably because Calvin ran the lab in which Benson did the work. As I understand it, it's common in the Nobels for the principal investigators to get the award and the people who did the research under their supervision not to. The Russian 2007 paper considers it notable that three of the five Benson-Calvin-Bassham papers have Benson as first author. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. National Academy of Science member; clear pass of WP:PROF #3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per David Eppstein, but the article needs a lot of improvement. THF (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added some good wikilinks for context looks OK now Thruxton (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (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.