Template:Did you know nominations/Yara Salman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SL93 (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yara Salman

Created by Lajmmoore (talk) and Silver seren (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 22:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC).

  • Hmmm this borderline reads like an advert but not so much that it's a red flag. Otherwise the article is new and long enough, hook is interesting and supported by an accessible albeit Arabic source, and no evidence of copyright violation. QPQ has been done. Should be alright! Might note that there's a bit of date format inconsistency, by the way. Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Kingoflettuce, Lajmmoore, and Silver seren: hmm—I'd be borderline fine with the hook if it rested on sturdy sourcing, but one seems to be a PR service (issuu's red marketing services) and two more read pretty promotionally. are there better sources to show due weight? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 09:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"Issu's Red Marketing Services"
???? First off, Issuu is just a PDF hosting service. Second, Woman This Month is an actual published Bahraini magazine. It isn't a PR service. The other sources are in well known newspapers. SilverserenC 23:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Leeky probably misunderstood "Red House Marketing" as some PR arm of issuu. In any case, the simple facts referred to in the hook aren't controversial in the slightest, so it shouldn't be a problem. Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I took Red House Marketing as the author of the material, although I knew issuu was a hosting service. My issuu (yes, I'm sorry) was also that these sources look pretty biased to me; but that doesn't seem to be a reason to hold up the nom, since it looks neutral enough. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 02:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was OK since the hook referred to things that were very much "objective". Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)