Talk:Yasmeen Tahir

....

The two mentions of the well-known and significant award she received and that was the main claim at passing ANYBIO have been removed, as a lot of other things (including the major part of her filmography) for reasons that are not clear to me, and the notability tag reinstated, despite the very clear documentation for the template stating, "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If the article exists within the scope of a specific WikiProject it may be beneficial to invite feedback from the group." But hey. As for UPE, nothing to show that.....Not watching this, nor trying to improve it anymore, given the approach adopted and the (....) comments on my TP and one recent edit summary of the p. regarding notability. Therefore, count me out (which may have been the idea :D!) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) (only one mention oft the award removed, the other moved, my bad)

1. The two mentions of the well-known and significant award she received and that was the main claim at passing ANYBIO have been removed, The award is already included in both the career section and the infobox. There's no need to repeat it multiple times throughout the BLP.
2. ...as a lot of other things (including the major part of her filmography) for reasons that are not clear to me... Please read the edit summaries for each of my edits; they provide reasons for the changes made.
3. the notability tag reinstated, despite the very clear documentation for the template stating, "The template must not be re-added. But why not? If the BLP clearly fails to meet WP:N?
4. ...Please do not edit war over it... You're the one who's engaging in edit warring here.
5. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Sure, let's discuss it here. Why don't you help establish the GNG because WP:ANYBIO #1 doesn't override GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft

Hello, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT this should NOT have been moved back to draft a second time. Please @Rydex64: kindly take measures to undo your draftification, thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Did it myself. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank, You're engaging in edit warring here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Educate yourself before making accusations. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Mushy Yank, No need to feel offended. First, you reverted my draftification, and then you reverted the draftification made by @Rydex64 so it's fair to say you're the one who is engaging in the edit war here. Anyway, I think we should seek a others' opinion instead of escalating this matter further. Therefore, I'm pinging @S0091, CNMall41, and Allan Nonymous: for their input. I'm also including a link to our discussion on your tp: User talk:Mushy Yank#Yasmeen Tahir. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib, @Mushy Yank is correct. Generally an article should only be draftyfied once unless the editor is UPE/COI but that's certainly not the case with Mushy who is the editor that moved it back to article. I am assuming @Rydex64 did not notice who moved it. If you do not think it meets notability, you will need take it to AfD. S0091 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, Take it to AfD? and then watch it get rescued by keep votes without any policy-based rationale? I'm leaving it just as it is! And there's no regard for AFC process ? Right! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Saqib.

@Mushy Yank: And, If you check the Teahouse forum [1], several editors have already advised the page creator to work on the page and re-submit the draft for an AfC reviewer to review. I also don't see any reason for you to remove the templates that were placed.

Additionally, if this article is to remain in the main space, it should be retitled to "Yasmin Tahir," as that is the commonly accepted spelling of her name in most articles. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 14:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

By moving the draft to article, Mushy is taking responsibility for it which they can do. As I state above, clearly Mushy does not have a COI. S0091 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, I'm not alleging Mushy Yank has a COI, but they should at least respect the AFC process. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

AfC is not required, technically even for COI/UPE though the community expects COI/UPE to use AfC (per WP:COI you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, emphasis in the guideline) but any editor in good standing can by-pass it which is the case here. S0091 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, Sure, any editor in good standing can by-pass it However, in this case, @BeauSuzanne, is not considered to be in good standing. Have you seen the history of the BLP? The amount of WP:OR they added using WP:FICTITIOUS. They agreed agreed to follow the AFC review process, but here we're. Someone rushed to move the BLP back to the main NS — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

But BeauSuzanne is not who moved it mainspace so that is a valid argument. It is not uncommon for an experienced editor to 'adopt' a draft created by COI/UPE, clean it up and move to it mainspace. I've done it depending on the circumstances. @Mushy Yank if you have not already, I do strongly suggest you ensure the sources verify the content because Saqib is correct in that the editor who created this is known to include claims not supported by the cited sources. S0091 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091 Exactly my point. I wish Mushy Yank had made some effort to clean up the mess before moving the BLP to the main namespace. I had to do it instead. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Placing this here in case any Urdu speakers come along:

google books search

Valereee (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)