Talk:Dananeer Mobeen: Difference between revisions

WP:THREE best sources

At least three best source are given below:

• Explainer: Who is Dananeer Mobeen? – An introductory profile on her background and rise to fame. The Express Tribune

• Viral 'Pawri Girl' from Pakistan, Dananeer Mobeen becomes actress, wins an award – Coverage of her acting debut and award win. Times of India

• Dananeer set to play lead role in Meem Se Mohabbat – Announcement of her leading role in a new drama. Daily Times

• Dananeer surprises fans with first look from Sinf-e-Aahan – Her debut acting role in the military drama. Samaa TV (Archived) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behappyyar (talk • contribs)

None of those have named authors and "announcements" are press releases. Looking at other sources, I don't see any that meet that meet the notability criteria. Not to mention sources like somethinghaute.com and Social Diary Magazine are blogs/content farms. S0091 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. All crap sources that are inline with WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It also an attempt to create yet another page deleted G5 under the SCOT sock farm. See this current discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Explaining the meme in this article

@CNMall41 What's the basis to say that the explanation of the meme that made her became famous is extraneous contextual information? All of that content pertaining to that stage in career is completely opaque, unintelligible, and an absolute word salad without the explanation of the meme. —Alalch E. 16:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it is promotional and too much detail. She created a viral meme...period. The in-depth detailed explanation is what creates the wordsalad. You may also want to visit the ANI discussion about this thread. Also, your reverts in violation of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS are not appreciated. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

She rose to fame by mocking burgers in a way that many sympathized with across the India-Pakistan border and the article somehow can't say it? That's actually an NPOV problem. —Alalch E. 16:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a page needs created for the meme if it was notable enough to be included in such great detail here.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Also seems like most press is surrounding the video so WP:ONEEVENT would likely apply assuming this does not go G5 (and if it don't it will likely go AfD).--CNMall41 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

She's a notable actor apparently. If you don't think she is, nominate for AfD. That's unrelated to fixing the problems with the article: insufficient context, incoprehensible, apparent NPOV issue with waffly evasive language. We are absolutely supposed to write what she did that propelled her to fame. A separate page for the meme is unjustified per WP:PAGEDECIDE; the content should be concentrated on one page -- this page. The content about the meme is purely explaining what it means and saying that she became famous for some unexplained meme doing god knows what is literally a word salad of a biography that imparts no information to a reader. —Alalch E. 16:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"If you don't think she is, nominate for AfD." - Again, read the ANI thread. Why go AfD when it will likely go G5? I was being sarcastic about the meme. My point is that it isn't justified to put so much context about it. She uploaded a video and it went viral. And, she isn't notable in my opinion (and others - see above and the undeletion requests) but that can be decided should this survive G5. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't care about the ANI thread. I am editing this article because I am interested in the topic. It's not going to go G5 because I am taking responsibility for it now (see Special:Diff/1298124574). The meme is her accomplishment, it's what caused her to become famous, it's what explains her nickname, the meaning of Pawri ... it is incomprehensible to me that we disagree. We're going to need other editors to resolve this. We're just never going to agree. We could seek a third opinion or go to WP:DRN. —Alalch E. 16:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You "don't care about the ANI thread?" Okay. Sounds like something that should also be addressed at ANI. Get consensus and if this is not G5'd, we can discuss at the AfD. In the meantime, you still need consensus for the in-depth details of the ONEEVENT.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be difficult to address it at ANI since its an AN (no I) thread.

I've been passively following the scots farm too, and the loophole used to circumvent the blacklist and get this page to mainspace without a proper review is frustrating, but its here now and so we have to deal with it as it is, not as it should be.

As long as this page exists it would make sense to explain some of the context behind the meme, so long as its sourced. Issues with notability of the subject would be best handled at AfD, G5 (unlikely now), or the AN thread, not by edit warring. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, your editing is starting to close in on TE territory. The page still has unreliable sources. I will fix the issue if you would like. Let me know. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I know you "don't care about the ANI thread," but it was necessary to report this interaction there. Just FYI. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't give me the laughs. I don't give a fuck's fuck about the ANI thread. It isn't eligible anymore for G5 after what I did. You can of course nominate at AfD; the only thing to discuss in the AfD is eligibility of the topic for inclusion, not the points of content improvement. The content dispute we're having here can be discussed further here, but you and I specifically are not going to make any progress. You have made the article non-neutral and fundamentally non-educational. Soon enough we'll get more editors involved to resolve the content dispute; any comments on the preferred venue? —Alalch E. 17:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You should calm down and be more WP:CIVIL. Maybe take a step back before editing again. Do not threaten ("soon enough.."), just do. Not my choice to pick a venue. WP:CIR and WP:ONUS is on you. Glad you don't give a fuck about ANI discussions involving policy though. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

DRN then, and I asked you out of courtesy to give you the ability to choose. What was I threatening, dispute resolution? —Alalch E. 17:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

When I said "just do," I assumed you would select the right forum. As far as this, once you redact I will gladly come back to discuss but would recommend once again to calm down and be civil. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Part of the consensus building process is working together with others to choose a suitable venue or method for resolving disputes. Alalch E. had already floated the idea of DRN "We could seek a third opinion or go to WP:DRN" earlier, and explicitly asked if you had a preferred venue. You declined to provide a preference and instead encouraged them to "just do".

"When I said "just do," I assumed you would select the right forum." – This is transparent needling.

Please drop everything else and discuss the content on the page. I'll start: I think that providing context behind the meme, which is a large part of the subject's alleged notability, is helpful to readers understanding. What do you think? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're fine without looking back. I don't mind the idea that DRN was not the correct thing to start while the AN was ongoing; I should not have suggested DRN knowing that it was going on even if I did not particularly care about the specific conduct untanglings involved, and in that respect it made no sense for me to say that I absolutely don't care about it (at least to that degree I should have cared—not to start the DRN). But I appreciate your comments in the DRN, and some constructive talking did happen there. I have redacted what CNMall41 requested me to redact (is that okay?), and I look forward to continuing the conversation based on CNMall41's answer to your question (I think that providing context behind the meme, which is a large part of the subject's alleged notability, is helpful to readers understanding. What do you think?) —Alalch E. 17:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

ftthtf, I will say that if you have an issue with my conduct, take it right to ANI. Given the roadmap of how we got here I was not inclined to assume good faith longer (WP:PACT). Given the ANI redaction by Alalch, I am fine with dropping the stick at this point.

Alalch, The redaction is fine. I would just ask you not let emotional control your behavior. This is Wikipedia, not real life. I am not really an asshole (some may argue otherwise), but I have dealt with daily attacks and incivility so no longer tolerate any hint of it. I would have expected it to be addressed at ANI which is why I pointed it out and only stopped AGF once you became agitated and what I perceived as uncivil. I am fine with dropping the stick as I should also control my emotions more, but ask you reflect on why we are here. The conduct came off as bludgeoning to me which you can see from the links I provided at ANI (and the SOCK comments on your own talk page) is why the page was salted in the first place. Now, as far as content, that is way too much context about the meme. This is a BLP, not a page about the meme. Simply stating she created a viral meme is enough. You can also throw WP:COAT into play. Finally, I still do not think this discussion is necessary as of yet as it is still an issue at ANI. Regardless, you have my opinion on the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It is necessary. Please keep participating in dispute resolution. Conduct track vs. content track. Content issues on live articles are not referred or deferred to AN/I. The meme content here is inextricably biographical content because it is an event and an episode in the subject's life, where she took certain actions, which then had certain consequences for her and the wider world, all of which became WP:NOTEWORTHY and led to her real-world notability and acting career. It is noteworthy, while probably not being standalone-wiki-notable and should in any case not be spun out under reasons in WP:PAGEDECIDE. "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable". If the meme is COAT why is it still included and why does the current version emphasize more trivial detail such as views, which is the opposite of what's emphasized in the best sources on this (BBC, Al Jazeera, and Reuters)? X views, Y views of another person's remix of an unknown and unstated thing, Z incomprehensible text in an unknown language, unintelligible nickname: there is no encyclopedic value. So, it is included but meaningless? There is inherent encyclopedic value when the sources are correctly summarized and the thing is made humanly comprehensible to a broad WP:AUDIENCE. And there is cultural/group tension involved with the parody of the "Burger" demographic; making the content unintelligible looks like an effort to obfuscate the potentially awkward dynamic, on the level of appearances, causing a non-negligible NPOV problem. Therefore, please revise your position and let go of the objection to this content. —Alalch E. 22:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you want me to revise. My position is unchanged. Since DRN was not an option, you could always go RfC. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing

I am not seeing such problems with sourcing as Special:Diff/1298125455 that would warrant a top tag. @CNMall41: Please be BOLD in resolving all source reliability issues by removing such sources and the associated content, as you stated you would do. We can then discuss whether they really are unreliable or not. At a glance, all the statements are verifiable by a sufficiently good source for the type of statement being made. —Alalch E. 17:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I will take a look later. Want to enjoy my time here at Wikipedia for a while prior to engaging you in discussion further.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alalch E., the two I do not think are reliable are Somethinghaute and Social Diary Magazine, though I have not looked that deep into the others. Both are essentially blogs/contentent farms. Here is a 2023 interview with Somethinghaute founder Aamna Isani where she talks about starting as a blog, then a website (not a news organization)m. It is mostly about getting advertisers and moving to social media. If you look at the News category on the site you will see the last post seems to be in February with sporadic posts dated back to 2023 on the first page and all are by "Haute Reporter".

Social Diary Magazine's contact email is a gmail address which is a red flag and here (via Internet Archive) one of their writers says their "focus on SEO writing and content strategy". Better sources for content they are supporting in this article I don't think should be hard to find, though. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I just saw the DRN notice on CNM's tp. No need to respond this right now. Too much else going on. S0091 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying those. Working on it... —Alalch E. 18:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

No rush. S0091 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I have replaced both of those: Something Haute with Daily Times and The Express Tribune, and Social Diary Magazine with GNN; about the latter I wrote: website of a TV channel -- former CNBC Pakistan, owned by Vision Network Television Limited -- no specific reliability concerns since the rebranding. Any follow-up comments on those or other sources that may lead to resolving the unreliable sources tag would be appreciated. —Alalch E. 11:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem is they are going by social media posts ,"According to the pictures circulating on social media, Dananeer Mobeen is working in her first film, ‘Behnaz", so they have not independently confirmed she is in fact in the film. It doesn't even say whose account, etc. It's gossip with a Web Desk by-line. I am also seeing similar with other sources. It's the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. S0091 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes... the upcoming film sourcing that I'm able to find is all quite bad after all, and I'll be removing that. My bad on that count. The first TV role sourcing, however, is I believe passable, and is corroborated by her winning the notable award (source). —Alalch E. 16:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)