Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banana equivalent dose

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. Withdrawn (nominator asked me per e-mail to speedy-close this AfD). Sandstein 07:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banana equivalent dose[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and confused Johnfos (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confused, yes... but that just means it needs a cleanup, right? Notability I'm not sure about, but the idea of comparing radiation exposure to bananas seems to be a growing meme, judging by Google News and Web searches for radioactive banana. It seems to be current because it is bandied about on a few blogs and discussion boards in relation to the Japanese nuclear power plant problem. But, perhaps it could be merged into Banana, or Ionizing radiation units? What's the usual thing to do for confusing memes that blur hard science and soft media? PeteSF (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, incoherent rationale, well-sourced article. Non-notable has no meaning here, since it meets the standards of sourcing and so on. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure it's well-sourced. The only source for the actual value of the "banana equivalent dose" of 0.1 μSv is a PDF from the University of Nevada Reno Environmental Health and Safety, which cites Bowes & Church's Food Values of Portions Commonly Used and Chart of the Nuclides, neither of which appear to be sources specifically on health physics, and they don't show how their result was derived from those sources. -- Afiler (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading back through the history (I'd read it several days ago and wondered at the changes) it appears to have progressively lost details, including derivation, and gained quibbles, caveats, and contentiousness in bold letters. I think we'd be better off with the version of around 15 March. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article. As a former nuclear physicist, I often quote this article for people to put radioactivity levels into context they can relate to and understand. Danellicus (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep, quick web search turns up many notable uses of the phrase in the media: [1][2][3][4] As the last link indicates, it's not a very good unit of measure: not only is there no 'reference banana', but the actual effects are debatable, making it a squishy unit of measure. This doesn't mean it's not notable, though, as it appears to be talked about more than enough to make it notable. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, there seems to be plenty of evidence of notability. 'Confused' is hardly a criteria for deletion Bfigura ^(talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not convinced it's more than borderline notable, but that's more than enough for such a useful little gem of an article that fills an important gap in the reference literature. Hans Adler 02:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. If it needs a rewrite it should be rewritten, but when it first started to be referenced it was fairly clear, with a nice straightforward example of how one works through the problem from a bequerel count to an absorption-normalized dose. A lot of the confusion has been added in recent days as weasel-words were added. No one expects a "banana equivalent dose" to become an SI unit, but it is a useful comparison, and within its limits it's well defined. It's also, as noted above, been used notably in a number of publications. Frankly, I have to wonder if the proposal to delete is not at heart an NPV violation -- is the motivation that the BED comparison is politically inconvenient for some parties? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Should not have been nominated in the first place. WP:JNN Article is useful and informative. It was in great shape a few days ago but started to get mucked-up by people pursuing pro- or anti- nuclear agendas. It's pretty obvious it was made a candidate for deletion due to political purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Useful, informative. If all else fails revert to its state prior to recent edit warring.--Sommerfeld (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I wanted to know about the "Banana Equivalent Dose" and googled it and found this article, so I came here and read about the topic that interested me. That's what an article in an encyclopedia is for, right? Maybe the article could be improved, but it certainly should not be deleted. 03:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.67.102 (talk)

keep Been using and referring to this page for while, as it refers to an easy way to understand exposure (which is especially relevant to current events) Ronabop (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I also don't understand why this was nominated - the basic idea was around at least 15 years ago, and it's a useful reference for people that are trying to frame radiation exposures in a context they can understand. TriMesh (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I point people to here regularly and the concept is featured in news and other contents. Definitely notable. --27.130.69.51 (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.