| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
In reply to the argument below, i'd like to include evidence that Phaedon Avouris was indeed one of the nominees for Nobel of Physics 2003 (though he didn't receive it) as was abvious by page of cnn.com/science & space at http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/06/nobel.prizes.reut/index.html and titled: NOBEL FOR PHYSICS TO BE AWARDED TUESDAY, date Oct. 6, 2003 Also it can be noted in the following: - http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/10/60698 - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2003/10/04/959799.htm
You may contact him personally to verify this as well (email included in the links in his biography). Thanking you in advance Leda Avouri- his niece
In response to that I suggest that SOMEBODY email him to check some of the things on this article that require an expert. I would decline to because of security but I feel that it is a good idea provided he follows the wiki guidlines. Cclb119 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by LAvouri (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim that Avouris was a candidate for the 2003 Nobel Prize needs a citation. The lists of nominees for Nobel Prizes are not revealed for fifty years, so no one outside of the selection process has ever seen the 2003 list. If someone who is eligible to nominate Nobel candidates has publicly acknowledged nominating Avouris that would be proof enough, but the article needs to cite such a claim in order to be credible.
- Since I wrote the above comment someone has added links to two newspaper articles which quote observers speculateding that Avouris was one of many chemists who might win. This is not the same thing as saying he was formally nominated. Viable candidates often are not nominated and I see no evidence that Avouris ever was. He may have been, but without evidence the statement shouldn't be here. It's also possible that Avouris has been nominated in many different years, but the reference to 2003 suggests it has happened only once. I recommend deleting the comment.
- Agreed. The line has been deleted. Given that the prize was given for supersymmetry, not all related to any of the nominees in the article, it is quite clear the links are speculation and not evidence of a nomination. Grumpman 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)