Talk:Dananeer Mobeen

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)

I want you to give up the objection and stop reverting. Your position is not editorially sound. I know that you hadn't carefully read the sources to be sure about how to summarize them before the dispute became entrenched. I really think you should drop it to avoid an RfC. Look at some other article where a particular episode caused someone to become notable. —Alalch E. 22:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren: The first two tags you removed are related to this dispute (cryptic, unintelligible meme content and nickname origin ... covered in depth by BBC, Al Jazeera and Reuters, yet not summarized based on those sources because of CNMall41's belief that it's COAT). It's fine that you removed the tags, but I'm just letting you know what they were about. —Alalch E. 22:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop making projections ("I know that you hadn't carefully read....") or it will end up back at ANI for your conduct. Its getting exhausting. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I have evidence, and you're stonewalling.

You did not have the time to properly assess the BBC and Al Jazeera sources that had not been in the article when I added them in 16:22 when you removed the content which summarized those sources in 16:27, leaving behind content that does not genuinely summarize the sources and is more similar to the previous content, before my expansion. You then made the edit in Special:Diff/1298121411 with the summary a viral video does not make you an influencer, which means that you did not read this BBC article which contains: "Dananeer Mobin, 19, whose Instagram bio says "call me Geena", is a social media influencer from Pakistan's northern city of Peshawar. Her posts usually centre around fashion and make-up.", meaning that she has been an influencer prior to the viral video; this you were not aware of, because you simply did not read the source during the five minutes between my expansion and your partial removal, and the removal was selective, requiring some hands-on editing, meaning that during those less-than-five-minutes you were looking at the editing window, not the sources. You became entrenched in your position without studying the sources, and that is not some amateur psyschoanalyzing, it is, in fact, pretty clear.—Alalch E. 23:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing what text the tags were referring to. Was there additional content that was removed at some point? Because the article currently only generally discusses the meme in relation to the person that spawned it, which is appropriate for a biographical article like this. The current text seems exactly right for what you want in this sort of article. Silverseren^C 22:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Yes, there was additional content that was removed, it is in the left side of this diff: Special:Diff/1298121342. Everything has been said already in this article talk thread, but I made a breakdown of the removed content in the DRN discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Dananeer Mobeen (the explanatinon of what she did that made her gain more mainstream attention and become an actor and the origin of her nickname). That content was written based on the most in-depth and most reliable sources dealing directly with Dananeer Mobeen (BBC and Al Jazeera).

/edit: extending my comment:/ I did some work on the article and it should be clearer now that this is not simply some meme that she spawned.

This is her being an influencer who posts photos of herself and typical influencer videos, and in one of those videos she did something a bit provocative and more performative than usual, which went viral, and then the meme was spawned, causing her follower count to increase dramatically, and her to gain mainstream attention and start receiving acting offers; and that is why and how she became an actress in addition to being an influencer. (Throughout this period, she has remained an influencer.) This is not a biographical article "like this" as in a typical article about an actor that primarily describes the roles. It is primarily, or at the very least equally, an article about an influencer, because that is where the bulk of her notability derives from based on depth and quality of coverage (BBC, BBC Urdu, Al Jazeera). And she was nicknamed after what she did, i.e., what she said, and is still known under that nickname. It is like Hawk Tuah Girl.

The dispute here is that CNMall41 does not want the article to say what she did and what her nickname means (at all and in relation to what she did). Imagine the Hawk Tuah Girl article not explaining what "hawk tuah" means. The content I wrote is really appropriate for our general WP:AUDIENCE, and answers the key questions that a reader would have. I hope that you understand now, after looking at everything. —Alalch E. 03:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I still agree that providing context to the meme is relevant for our readers understanding of the topic. I disagree that providing context in this case would be deviating from the article's "nominal subject" (WP:COAT), the meme is a large part of the subject's proposed notability, so it follows that providing an reasonable explanation of the meme will help our readers better understand the subject too. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

CNMall41 has bowed out and I have restored the content he had removed. Please see Special:Diff/1298389480. As the restored content was not substantially edited by others, having sat in page history while the dispute was ongoing, it could probably use a few touch-ups. (I have retained some of the copyedits made in the meantime.) —Alalch E. 06:23, 2 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)

GirlsOnly

Hi. Although only an image is here, the article nowhere mentions her being a host of a YouTube show GirlsOnly. I have found unbylined references of two major news outlets, discussing four of her guests:

The Express Tribune	24 Digital
Yashma Gill Shae Gill	Mariyam Nafees Nehaal Naseem

Can these be used just to establish the fact? We can place {{efn}} to avoid appearing as CITEKILL. And because YouTube is not a bad source as well, we can also use a primary reference. Further, I have uploaded a few more snaps from this video.

Thank you! M. Billoo 05:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

DOB

I am finding mainly FANCRUFT such as this for her DOB. Or there a ton of non-bylined sources which I am always leery of due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA and churnalism concerns. If anyone can find a better source would be happy to take a closer look. CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Dananeer Mobeen was born in Islamabad in 2001 from The Indian Express

My birthday pictures are here!🖤🪄✨27/12 – Mobeen's verified instagram, and this is from her midnight celebration a few days ago, is from last year, etc. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I would not use Indian Express. I am always highly suspect of NEWSORGINDIA churnalism, especially when it comes to BLPPRIVACY. "Trend desk" bylines don't cut it. But, since WP:DOB allows social media, the Instagram source could be used as long as there "no reason to doubt it." Feel free to add it back with the source. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four:, despite the discussion I see you inserted the Indian Express which I already objected to as being reliable for the purpose of DOB. It was the Instagram reference that I noted would be acceptable under WP:DOB. However, looking closer at the Instagram posts, it does not state year or age so it only confirms the day or birth, not the date of birth. I won't revert for the moment but there needs to be a better source and the other half dozen that fall under NEWSORGINDIA can be removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The existing Reuters source already supplies a year via WP:CALC, The Indian Express (which was found to be generally reliable at the last RfC about it, if you want to WP:NEWSORGINDIA it, take it to WP:RSN) was added as an easier-to-parse supplemental source. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I get your contention but that is not how it works. You would need to go to RSN or get consensus per ONUS. The Reuters source does not supply a year. It says an interview took place in 2021 and that she is 19. Nothing about DOB. The Indian Express is generally reliable, but this specific reference from the Indian Express is basically a copy and paste of social media activity and can also be considered churnalism. Not independent and not reliable. We do not accept all source from a publication as reliable just because it is considered generally reliable. Would be easier to try to find a source that does work if you can, but I couldn't find one. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I applied WP:CALC, Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. to the Reuters source (2021-(19+1)) and the result was 2001. There may be a stronger exclusion argument using WP:BLPPRIVACY.

As for The Indian Express source, sure, let's work towards forming consensus locally. Inviting all editors from the last 50 revisions who have made substantive content edits to weigh in, @Israrhashim29, Alalch E., M.Billoo2000, and ItsSmartMe: Would this source ^{(archive 1, archive 2)} be appropriate to support 2001 year of birth claim? (updated 21:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy of evidence of unreliability raised by M.Billoo2000 in this comment, I think we can strike the Indian Express source as unreliable. That leaves the Reuters source, which provides a year via WP:CALC, and the Instagram source, which provides a month and day via WP:ABOUTSELF. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four:, I don't see the need for such a long discussion. If we can find a reliable source then we can use it. If we cannot, then we cannot. I see someone brought up the ANI discussion and glad they did. That discussion was about SOCK bludgeoning and the result of that discussion was WP:READERSFIRST. If we are keeping readers in mind, then we need to be accurate with things that fall under BLPPRIVACY. The DOB has been changed several times so there is no need to use unreliable sources. I see in the discussion below that even the city location is listed differently in different sources which shows why we do not use such sources (obviously no editorial oversight for those specific articles). DOB allows Instagram (I disagree with the guideline but will support it since that is consensus). However, there is nothing else out there reliable I see to support the year. Even M. Billoo2000 says there is no Urdu source which I feel would be the first language that would discuss her DOB.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable source then we can use it. – I've mentioned using WP:CALC with the information within the Reuters source (given age at a specific month and year) to use simple arithmetic to get a birth year twice, would you please give your thoughts on that? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I had already stated above that it does not state a year. I only see a statement of "Dananeer Mobeen, 19, a social media influencer who has become famous after her five-second video went viral, speaks during an interview with Reuters, in Karachi, Pakistan February 27, 2021.". This is posted by Reuters Connect which is a platform that allows partners to use the content. Not dismissing the source, but I do not see where it states a year of birth. There is no video preview so wondering if you were able to access the video and where. CALC is fine but again, I do not see the year. Is there anything else out there? Again, the main focus here is READERSFIRST and ensuring that we get it right. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Does the Reuters source not provide enough information for us to use Basic arithmetic to derive a year? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The Reuters source has a caption on a screenshot with no viewable video. There is no date of birth, or even year of birth, stated.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Correct, there is no explicit year of birth given, but WP:CALC allows a year of birth to be derived. An early primary school math question about it might be phrased like:

If Mobeen has her birthday in December, and Mobeen was 19 in February 2021, then what year was Mobeen born? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::cast pearls before swine. M. Billoo 12:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming the misunderstanding is caused by the somewhat unusual source or my own failure to communicate more clearly. It's far more likely I'm the one trampling anything than CNMall41. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

And I am assuming that I am the one who fails the communication of simple Google search about the SIGCOV, just because some anonymous editor created a fault in the sourced birthdate few weeks back and it was left ignored just until few hours ago. M. Billoo 13:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

FTTHTF, I believe you and I are both communicating clearly. However, I think we have a disagreement with what information is required in order to confer the DOB under CALC. I would also say that DOB needs to be widely published and if we are having so much trouble finding sources to be sure of what that is, we should leave it out until there is a source that states it. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfamiliar with that acronym, there does exist wider coverage of that information via the full Reuters story , BBC Urdu and American Kahani coverage (more staff-writer coverage not listed). Each rather forwardly states Mobeen's age in relation to the event she is most notable for, indicating it is a notable aspect that we should inform our readers of, a DOB is the best way to convey this, and one (at least a month and year) can be supported.

Also, widely published is one of two paths for inclusion given by WP:DOB, the other is if there exists sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public, and given that Mobeen publicly posts on instagram yearly about her December birthday, that certainly seems to be met.

I understand if you still disagree, I'm just trying to better explain my reasoning for consensus-building purposes. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The acronym is for your username (gets long to write out sometimes. lol). Can I just type "fifteen" for short? I do understand your reasoning. I honestly do as I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am exhausted from the preivous discussions on this page so this is the last place I want to be. I just do not think that putting together multiple sources to deduce the DOB in the manner you have meets the guideline. We have Instagram were we can deduce the day, but we are then trying to use multiple other sources to assume the year. Note again that these sources are mainly fancruft, unreliable, and some can't even get the location of birth correct. By "widely published", I am saying that if the subject wanted her birth date (note birth day) published, I think there would be more publications that list it. Maybe in the future there will be, either by her own admission or when she gets more press. In the meantime, I do not believe there is enough. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this I think. fifteen is fine, and thank you for your civility. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: Thank you for your time. Here in Pakistan, we cannot access the Indian links since the aftermath of 2025 India–Pakistan crisis without using one of the properly licensed VPNs. However, the actual misconception that needs to be addressed here is the term "unbylined churnalism". Yes, I do agree that there are multiple low quality references out there which just copy-paste the material, either to promote the press releases, or lacking the fact-checking, or only to clickbait. Then, there are these references which do properly prove the fact without the need to name the author. In this case, it is true that we can calculate the subject's DoB by merging multiple references that are NOT THE LOW QUALITY COPY-PASTES. It is about the presentation of content for the fans, as passed in the AN few months back, yet we are stuck again in this never ending loops of discussions due to ONUS. Again, I thank you fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four for backing my edit here, hope my response helps as well. M. Billoo 21:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unaware that access would be restricted. I've made two new archives: archive.is and the wayback machine, hopefully one is accessible. For right now I'd like to just focus on evaluating The Indian Express (and other DOB) sources, a broader discussion on sourcing concerns would be better suited for a new discussion I think. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Accessed archive 2, however the problem is, born in Islamabad in 2001. They may got the year right, but the city wrong. Just came across this snippet on YouTube (in Urdu) where she confirms the city to be Peshawar. M. Billoo 21:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Not a reliable source then, do you know of any Urdu sources that give a DOB? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, no. That is the only reason I had inserted the DoB like this back then. M. Billoo 21:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

"Then there are references which do properly prove the fact without the need to name the author." - Yet even those sources do not get the birth location correct so how can we claim they are factual for some things and not others? This is the reason for the discussion in the previous thread on sourcing above. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• And I just noticed a potential WP:3RR violation here. Just leaving a ping to Ivanvector, the one I call the judging admin who had sorted out the matter earlier this year. M. Billoo 21:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  (responding to ping) I don't see it, unless you're referring to the LTA in which case revert as much as you want. This discussion seems both civil and productive, I don't see the need for admin intervention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

  @M.Billoo2000:, can you please point out the 3RR violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• Upon recent researching her initial interviews back in 2022*, I have found SIGCOV about her being a 19-year-old. It is also an established concern that the date would be 27 December according to every social media references that we have pointed out. Then, there come a few references each year telling about her celebrating the birthday, by showing her instagram post. I don't know why we keep repeating the same arguments, and I cannot mention every reference right now due to CITEKILL, so there comes some COMMONSENSE as well. M. Billoo 05:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC) *2021, the correct year. M. Billoo 12:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

We are repeating the same argument as you state you found SIGCOV yet have not supplied a link to any. That is all that has been asked. Are you able to do so? That would solve the issue and we can close this thread and everyone can move on. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine to use WP:CALC to estimate year but it might be good idea to check at WP:BLPN. I do have an issue with using December 27th. That's the date of the post stating her "birthday pictures are here!" and that she didn't do a party because of COVID so had to "make it a very intimate dinner instead" which tells us the dinner took place prior to the 27th. It does not establish when her birthday actually is. Same with this post with a birthday pic stating "it hit 12:00" which is dated December 26th but we don't know when the pic was taken. It could be her birthday is the 25th, the 26th or earlier. Same with the one thanking people for their birthday wishes. I think is safe to say it is in December, though. Happy New Year! S0091 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the date of the post stating her "birthday pictures are here!" – I may be misunderstanding your meaning, but that post is from 30 December, the 27/12 she wrote within it would be referring to her birthday three days prior when the pictures were taken. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Ahh, I see that now, posted December 30, 2020 "My birthday pictures are here!🖤🪄✨27/12". Thanks for pointing that out but she still is not explicitly stating that is her birthday. It could be the date of the dinner which may or may not have been on her actual birthday. Like I said I think December is safe (or even late December) because she has consistently posted in late December about her birthday. Is there a post where she explicitly state "today is my birthday" or similar? If not, can we agree on using late December? That leaves the year as the sticking point but I think BLPN can help with that. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The date's clear enough to me, but reasonable minds can differ here. I don't have much of a desire to look through Mobeen's instagram more than I have already, so no objection to stating December or late December 2001. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

"Today is my 19th birthday" on social media would suffice as we can use CALC and it is permission (expressly stated with an example) under BLPPRIVACY. The issue is that we have nothing like that. We have articles posted on what we assume is her day of birth, then we have articles stating her age, but we not not have a reliable source stating any of this. On a side note, glad to see anothe users crossed off their ASPERSIONS as this is a contentious topic already without the need to be uncivil. I do appreciate your civility in the discussion as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

• I am out. But I appreciate fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four for supporting. M. Billoo 13:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

January 2026

Coming back because of the recent edit by S0091. No offence, but I still do not understand that why my justification keeps getting ignored. I talked about the three references there, now more clarifying my edit summary, "Rueters say her age, Daily Pakistan confirms her birthdate, and Geo TV confirms it from a social media post. so nothing is non-RS". Hope it helps. Thank you and best wishes. M. Billoo 15:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M.Billoo2000 not my intent to ignore anyone. Above I stated my issues but you did not participate in that portion of the discussion and above, before my additional comments, stated "I am out" so didn't want bug you by pinging. I think you provided incorrect links. I already agreed about Reuters stating her age (note I did not remove the year) but the Daily Pakistan link goes to a Something Haute YouTube video and the Instragram link is to someone else's post of pic that might be her but that's not usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. Right now I am occupied elsewhere IRL so it might take a bit to respond. Another option which I have mentioned a couple times is to utilize BLPN. S0091 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@S0091: Appreciate your time. I only stepped back because I am not interested in talking with some people, though you came later so my "out" does not count for it. I have mentioned the timestamp for the Something Haute YouTube video in my previous text, where she explicitly says 27 December (but not a year, which we had CALC'd already). M. Billoo 01:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Something Haute is not WP:RS. You stated "Daily Pakistan confirms her birthdate" but linked to Something Haute. Please provide the Daily Pakistan source to which you referred. If there is a good source that explicitly states her exact date of birth, I'm happy to consider it but also we also have to keep in mind WP:BLP privacy. Right now we have the month and year which provides readers a very close estimated age. To me, that's enough unless there is a compelling reason supported by sources to include the day. S0091 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The Something Haute video is an interview, so if Mobeen does state her DOB within it that should be WP:ABOUTSELF usable, a specific timestamp would be helpful.

I believe the Daily Pakistan source M. Billoo is talking about is this one which was present in prior versions of the article, quoting from it: In her recent interview with Something Haute ... Talking about the brand launch, she added. “I’m thinking to launch the brand digitally on my birthday which is on the 27th of December. People can buy the products through website and Instagram”. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Highlighted some text above. WP:IV. M. Billoo 02:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

You could always proceed with a RfC. Also, this would be the most appropriate noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks fifteen. What we have is an interview on YouTube published by what otherwise is a non-RS source (see this; Something Haute is essentially a self-published a blog) and another not so great source (i.e. Web Desk) that regurgitates said interview. However, WP:SELFPUB tells us Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.. (bolding mine) ...as long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and so forth. I think it meets that bar. Even so, I still believe we should always lean towards BLP privacy so I don't think the exact day should be included but policy allows it. S0091 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

To me Mobeen has made it clear with that public disclosure of their own DOB (and their yearly IG posts, one of which also had that date as discussed prior) that there isn't a privacy issue. That said, inclusion of the day isn't something I feel very strongly about, the practical difference in imparted knowledge between Mobeen was born 27 December 2001 and Mobeen was born December 2001 is fairly minimal. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue I have with exact day is identity theft. I get she does not shy away from b-day celebrations but she's also in her twenties and (presumably) the article about her will exist for years and years. It's just something I always think about with BLPs, especially those younger. S0091 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that we are more into support of adding now, finally. Thank you! M. Billoo 13:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you've misread the consensus here. S0091 seems resistant to adding the day for privacy reasons, CNMall41 for sourcing reasons, and I'm generally neutral. Two oppose, one neutral, one support. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000:, You have completely misread consensus here. In fact, I do not even support month (just the year). I would kindly ask you revert your addition. You are aware this is a contentious topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000 I agree with fifteen's assessment. As I stated, while strict reading of policy might allow for inclusion does not mean we should and I don't see a compelling reason to include the day. I thought we were in decent spot with month and year. And honestly, my preference is just year but I also believe in compromise. Though CNM disagrees with month, I think we have consensus to include it (fifteen let me know if I misunderstood your position on month). Either way, CNM is correct; you should revert. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Already been reverted by Alalch E., and you've not misunderstood my position. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPDOB says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." We do not have a date of birth that is widely published by reliable sources. We do not have a full date of birth (or birthday [resented with age) given by the subject so we cannot infer that the subject would not object to it. We are purposely conservative on birthdates of the living, it's not a piece of absolutely necessary information, and we have not reached the level that it is no longer a concern. As such, it should stay out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thank you for responding. I have already provided a video link with timestamp in which she has clearly stated the date and month, which is also quoted by a newspaper as mentioned above. And so, the same date and month is also mentioned clearly in one of her own social media post linked above. The year is CALC'd out using Rueters' interview. And then we have some other celebrities wishing her on social media on the same date, PKT. That is the everything we need as per the statement you quoted out from BLPDOB, and so the WP:RELIABILITY should not be a problem. I have had left a similar note on Talk:Emma Myers#Birthdate. And I have left the date blank myself while editing Romaisa Khan's BLP due to no WP:V as of my knowledge, though the social media references are available only on PKT which do not provide the written date or age, again as of my knowledge. And, similar video references have been used by me for Aima Baig and Scarlett Spears's BLPs, all written/expanded by me. So the thing is, I am not convinced with what the direction of this discussion has been, because I had used the similar way to add the subject's DoB months ago, and it was never a problem until just now. If this is really a problem, it should be discussed widely, so that any user may never add such in any article from now on. Again, I am pretty clear with my side, and I appreciate your comment. Thank you. M. Billoo 06:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Quite simply, if you need to add things together from different sources, then we do not have what it would take for it to "reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". Wishes from other celebrities we cannot use at all for this, under WP:BLPSPS. That there are other birthdates on Wikipedia that fail to live up to WP:BLPDOB is no surprise; it's common for people unaware of that guideline to add dates. That no one has corrected your other dates does not mean they are appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Checking the two other BLPs, those are different from this situation; one gives the exact date, the other both day, month, and age, which satisfies the "reasonably inferred" status. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Good you mentioned SPS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Above, Something Haute has been described as a blog (I remain neutral, no comment on that because I have used it multiple times considering the ownership of two of the reputable newspaper authors / media critics). And I am using the reference under WP:IV in which irrespective of the publication, the interviewer is reputable and the interviewee is the subject. M. Billoo 09:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Emma Myers' DOB can be found in at least three reliable sources. That is the full DOB. Many more references state just the age which would support. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

None of these complies WP:V, and particularly SCMP is just doubtful in my opinion, as recently presented by me in one of the DYK reviews. Though the CALC has been used by all just like I wrote there. However, the page has been edited by many other users, and I am currently out from there. M. Billoo 07:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Romaisa Khan has about a half dozen sources with the full DOB, but they are not reliable. They are all written by "news desk" or the like and not a staff writer.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

And so I have never mentioned it. M. Billoo 07:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Further to the above, we really only have Reuters that is usable and at best we can only state a year, or possibly one of two years since we do not know the exact date. Also, I appreciate that you redacted your earlier ASPERSIONS. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• Pointing to a current discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#YouTube_as_a_source_of_BIO_subjects_confirming_facts_about_themselves. M. Billoo 14:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)