Template:Did you know nominations/Gavin Lowe (computer scientist)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Gavin Lowe (computer scientist)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Gavin Lowe went from being at John's to being at Hugh's, but finally ended up at Catherine's?

• ALT1:... that Gavin Lowe helped develop a new degree at Oxford University? "Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4931, Vol 141" (PDF). University of Oxford. 27 October 2010. p. 1.

Created by Bellezzasolo (talk). Self-nominated at 12:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC).

• @Bellezzasolo: I'll be reviewing this.– Lionel^(talk) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Article is new enough and long enough. Regrettably this academic does not meet the notability standard of Wikipedia WP:PROF. I taged the article for notability however IMHO this is a candidate for CSD under A7.– Lionel^(talk) 03:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• [1] - cited by 1865. I think the top result alone is enough for notability. Then, 883, 788, 688, 304... ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 04:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at precedents, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Lewis - 40 cites and a keep. Sure, it was mentioned that google scholar may have missed a lot, which doesn't really apply to CS, but We're talking about 40* more citations on one paper. Scopus gives me 663,308,176,144... The most significant paper is in the Web of Science core collection. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• We don't really use "precedents" (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). And your precedent is 12 years old. That said, it looks like Lowe is "highly cited" so I removed the notability tag. However that still leaves the article sourced almost exclusively to Primary sources, so it's been tagged for sourcing. You'll have to resolve the tag before proceeding with DYK. Now I'm not a DYK expert, so feel free to get a second opinion.– Lionel^(talk) 11:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Reviewer needed to provide a second opinion on the sourcing, and perhaps (if warranted) a full re-review. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and the hook interesting. I have removed the tag as I think it is unnecessary, the article being as well-referenced to a variety of sources as many similar biographical articles, and the DYK could not proceed with the tag in place. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. (A7 is unwarranted here, and is in any event not a good reason for speedy deletion. He has published many widely cited papers. If this were to go to AfD, I feel sure it would be a keep.) Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but I can't put this into queue while there's a maintenance tag at the top of the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I think that I've addressed the maintenance issue, but I'm not comfortable removing the tag myself. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Some extra references from secondary sources have been added to this article. If you are happy to do so, could you remove the tag from the article and replace the tick here. This is the oldest article on the nomination page and It would be nice to get it promoted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources having been added, this is , based on the previous review. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)