Template:Did you know nominations/Zeyan Shafiq

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) 19:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Zeyan Shafiq

Created by Hums4r (talk). Nominated by TheAafi (talk) at 14:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC).

  • TheAafi, indeed it is true, it was back when the social media's got banned here, the only way to access them was VPN, but i remember kashbook was the only one which worked without a VPN, that was the reason why it got viral, i don't understand about DYK thing, but responding to your question yes it worked without a VPN. Hums4r.(Talk to me here) 14:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The page creator has admitted to a COI, and I would question the subject's notability. It appears he's only been doing this for a few years, hardly any time for notability to develop. Yoninah (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I have to agree. The gist is KashBook is a Facebook clone that was used by around ten thousand users in 2017 in order to circumvent a social media ban. Perryprog (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Yoninah, while I agree that this article has COI issues around but its tone and notability is clear-cut, and I don't think KashBook is just one thing that adds to his notability, there's significant coverage in multiple sources (due to KashBook and Stalwart Esports) and I'm sure that the subject may add more to his notability in future. Just 18 yo rn! ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
          • The notability is not clear cut. And the sourcing still isn't great. Most of the sources are repeating each other which is indicative of a PR campaign. CUPIDICAE💕 15:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I trust you Praxidicae. Please can you just post a detailed analysis of the available sources on article's talk page? Perhaps, I'd withdraw my nomination then but... ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
              • TheAafi, as far as i have read about DYK, i don't think this is eligible to meet the requirments, since it's is a very old news, the page is i guess more old then 7 days, and i don't know if it is listed as good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hums4r (talkcontribs)
                • Hums4r Since, you don't know a thing, you should stop commenting on it; the fact doesn't need to be quite new to merit DYK, and please sign your messages every time. The article was moved to mainspace just four days ago. Good Article status is something that is very hard. But DYK doesn't demand an article to be GA or FA. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I reckon this article meets the DYK criteria and the sources look OK to me. It is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. No QPQ needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)