Talk:Pulickel Ajayan

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Ajayan, Pulickel M|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}

{{WikiProject India|importance=low|kerala=yes|kerala-importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Chemistry|importance=Low}}

}}

Prod

I based it off the professor test: If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. He seems to me to be an average college professor. (A popular one, perhaps, going on the comment above mine.) There's no shame in that, and, because I am not an expert in the field, I won't bother taking this farther - so no harm done? My suggestion, however, would be to change, at least, the lead. "Pulickel Ajayan, Ph.D. is a professor of Materials Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute" make absolutely no assertion of notability, even if the body of the article does make some unverified, unsourced claims. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. Also listed selected honors for notability. Danski14 21:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

----

Professor Pulickel Ajayan is one between the main scientist working in the field of carbon nanotubes, with a quite long list of publications and citations. However the widely criteria to base the real value of a scientist on the number of publication and publication metric factors (as the h-factor for example) is extremely controversial and discussed. Concerning prof. Ajayan to this long list of publication do not correspond any fundamental major progress in the field of nanotubes but a long list of "routine" works as for many other senior scientist.

It is for these reasons I don't consider opportune to conserve anymore this article on the pages of Wikipedia.

:I disagree. Ajayan meets WP:PROF. Check the criteria.

He has a chaired position, mainstream independent news coverage, a few notable awards, and the research. These factors alone are enough to justify inclusion. Perhaps the article is not perfectly netutral when it comes to the actual significance of his work, but it should not be deleted. Danski14(talk) 19:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)