Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Swift Retort (film)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm not sure why no one has closed this yet, we have a pretty clear consensus in favor of deletion. ST47 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Operation Swift Retort (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is asserting notability for a 23 minute short film. While the subject of the film is notable (the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes), the film itself is not. It is published only on social media platforms and has minor coverage. Some of the sources are self-published by the producer of the film. Basically trivial and at best should be briefly mentioned in the main article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The article in 'TheNews' shows that the film is official The Article in 'TheNews' Magazine The Article in 'The News' Newspaper London Edition about the film The Article in 'Global Village Space' News website The Article in 'Brand Synario' The Article in 'SomethingHaute' Magazine The Article in 'Khaleej Mag' The Article in 'Gulf News' The Article And Film showing in 'INC PAK' Independent News Coverage Of Pakistan
 * There are many article of film in urdu language as well, i think the film is notable and have enough references to show. if someone denied it then i have to show them the films from pakistan who's having same amount of references and same websites and they are published here.
 * Thanks - Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Taking these in order:
 * 1 90% of the article is a direct quote from the film maker. No analysis or comment from the author of the article indicates this is not a serious journalistic reference.
 * 2 written by the same author as the article above. This is not independent of the first source and is trivial.
 * 3 is more substantive but I note the highly POV commentary (e.g., "The spokesperson of the Pakistani Armed forces, Major General Asif Ghafoor, exposed the Indian propaganda.") which suggests this is not a neutral or reliable source.
 * 4. Article is about something else and has just a passing reference to the YouTube video that is the subject of this AFD
 * 5 Passing reference noting only the low quality of the video
 * 6. Interview with the video producer, no journalistic input.
 * 7 Self publishing platform, not a reliable source. Note as well very close paraphrasing between the article and this "source".

And so on QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * 1) The article is fair notable because 'the news' is a reliable source if you refused this as non notable then you have to remove other films pages as well because they have added the news reference
 * 2) The first article is different from it, any pakistani journalist can confirm. (The News) , (In step) are both different
 * 3) Global Village Space is a media house run by dunya news and 92 news channel where are 1st Largest HD Tv channel of pakistan
 * 4) Please read carefully in that article "The name of this film is showing along with the filmmaker name" let me keep it simple for your An animated short by the name Operation Swift Retort has also released on YouTube.
 * Conceived and produced by DJ Kamal Mustafa, the animation attempts to present the Balakot operation, and the successful capture of Abhinandan. It is based on the events that took place on the night of February 26 and the following day.
 * 5) You only read about low quality of the film but didn't read the fully text Sir ? that somethinghaute has mentioned about the film, it has nothing to do with wikipedia that if the film is in low quality or high quality , the main thing is the website is talking about this film
 * 6)The journalist has interviewed the film maker and the news of the film "operation swift retort" is being published in the news paper london edition.
 * 7) Khaleej Mag is not run by me if i accept your claim then there are many source such as Gulf News, Nai Baat etc.
 * Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Please check the references yourself and other pakistani films references too as this one has same amount of references and websites which have others for example this film Buraaq, The_Evil_Marriage
 * I'm here to make wikipedia better, my aim is to write articles on pakistani topics. all suggestion and feedback are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS for a discussion on how other similar articles existing is rarely a convincing argument for retaining another article. I did read the sources, in full, and my opinion is that they do not create notability for a 23 minute YouTube film. Just because something is mentioned in a notable publication does not make the thing itself notable. Similarly, while the incident itself is notable, an animated film published on social media about the event is not automatically also notable. I'll leave it now for the rest of the community to determine. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * That link was discourteous and below you, note it should not be an official link as it was deleted at RfD, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per QuiteUnusual's good analysis of the sources, and the lack of any significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. The article is written in an inappropriate tone as well; that could be fixed, but the lack of notability cannot. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok So what do you suggest to keep this article ? how many notable websites needed ? Thenews is reliable source gulfnews is also reliable but you have ignored all ? i think i have to nominate for deleting other films as well because the references i mentioned are added in other films as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not looking for "notable websites" per se. What you are looking for is evidence that the film is notable. This requires significant discussion of the film (not the incident that the film is about) in a reliable source. A passing reference is not sufficient. I suggest you don't waste your time trying to get other articles deleted, you'd be better off working on improving this article, although I don't believe this is possible personally, QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much QuiteUnusual for response i'm still learning that how you decide that "film is notable" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Indeed a non-notable film that purports to depict the Pakistani national viewpoint, with no independent WP:THIRDPARTY coverage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response Kautilya3, but this is an official film of pakistan air force , how you can say it's not notable ? i may share government website references later on as well. There are 4 to 5 more news websites will cover this such as Dawn , Purazm.gov.pk and film magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is similar to the discussion about the difference between the incident being notable and the film being notable. Being an official film of a notable organisation doesn't make the film notable because it doesn't inherit notability in this way. For example, the US federal government has made thousands of public service announcements on all sorts of subjects, but while the US government is notable, as is the broad subject of PSAs, the individual films are rarely (perhaps never) individually notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're not from pakistan sir let me give you an example, you're confused between international and pakistani films topic. this is the film of pakistan army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glorious_Resolve , the glorious resolve is an operational code word same as operation swift retort. now tell me the difference between this and the operation swift retort. the thing is operation swift retort is an official film which is being showing on television , newspapers , news blogs and government places. if the film is official and have enough references then it means it is notable.
 * There is a second example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehd-e-Wafa this is a military drama which will be shown in youtube from tomorrow so does it mean it is not notable ?
 * notability of the film is dependable on the references and sources if the sources and references are in news then it is fine. pakistani wikipedians will understand this and may come and give their opinion.
 * Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no separate criteria for Pakistani films, or for films of any other nationality. All films are treated the same way. Films are primarily of entertainment value. Whether they claim to depict true events or not has to be determined by independent assessments, which are lacking in this case. But it is clear that it is depicting the Pakistani national position, which is understandably endorsed by the Pakistani media. In such a situation, we look for independent WP:THIRDPARTY assessments, which are again lacking in this case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as per the arguments and analysis of the sources. The Glorious Resolve is a poor exemple because I do not believe that if it was nominated today it would survive an AFD there was one single syndicated story that was picked up and reproduced by a few sources. The comparison with Ehd-e-Wafa is also not relevant because there are numerous independent RS and this is a 24 part television drama series that was made in collaboration with the army. That said it looks like there is quite a lot of Churnalism in there though. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks domdeparis

Appreciate your response regarding this please note down the references and site of 'ehd-e-wafa' those site will cover this film very soon then it will be notable am i right ? i'm still confused weather the site i have mentioned is not notable or the film, because film notability comes with references , if the references will come in BBC Urdu , voice of america , dawn news , ary news and major news channel of pakistan then it will be known as notable. right ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as it fails all the criteria of Notability (films). Non notable film from a non notable director published on Youtube. Whatever trivial coverage it has received is due to the event of airstrike but the Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir The person who put the deletion tag is saying that film is not notable and you saying film is getting coverage because of event this are two different things. this film is official and made with the permission from authorities as says and confirmed by pakistani media so kindly get your facts right first before jumping into conclusion. The film is sent for government award and may get award in Jan or March 23 (on pakistan resolution day). If the page get deleted never mind if i see any more references in 'guardian', bbc or government blog of pakistan , i will add the references. پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both the nominator and myself, agree that the film is non notable. I have reviewed the sources and I have concluded that whatever sources are available are there due to the notable event and not just the movie. see WP:NOTINHERITED to understand this point. If the film gets notable awards and passes WP:NFILM then you can revisit it later on. but "the film may get an award in future" is not a valid reason to keep junk articles. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Sure thanks پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome پاک آرمی زندہ باد. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I think I'm swimming upstream here, but let me give my analysis of the 12 (really more like 8) sources cited in this version of the article (current as I type this). I think the sources can be broken down into a few broad categories:
 * Sources 1, 4, and 8 are all, essentially, the same article. It was published in The News International, which is the largest English language newspaper in Pakistan.  1 and 8 are exactly the same article, however 1 is the online version and 8 is a pdf of the paper version. 4 has two additional paragraphs that 1 and 8 lack, but is by the same writer in the same publication and reads like an earlier draft.  For future reference I will refer to this article as the TNI article.
 * Sources 3, 5, and 10 appear to be something like a press release. They are all word for word the same, and they were written by the movie's producer. They do nothing to confer notability, although they can be used to cite basic facts and/or quotes if the quotes are relevant.  The article should probably only cite one of them, otherwise it looks like reference stacking.  I will not deal with these further in this analysis.
 * Sources 6 and 12 are not about this movie. Source 12 is about a memorial to the underlying events that the movie is based on.  It doesn't discuss the movie in any depth, but does embed a link to the movie at the end.  Source 6 is a 10 paragraph article about 2 other movies that are being made about the underlying event.  At the end it devotes 2 short paragraphs to discussing this movie, and embeds the video. The discussion in source 6 is basically limited to noting that this movie exists.  These do very little to support an article about this movie as the they do not go into enough depth for us to be able to build an article from them, however I do think they at least hint that this may be more notable than it appears.  However, they alone are not enough.
 * Source 2 is user generated content that carries the following disclaimer, "The articles shared under 'Your Voice' section are sent to us by contributors and we neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of any facts stated below." This completely rules it out as a RS.  As a non RS I will not consider it further.
 * That leaves us with sources 7, 9, and 11 in addition to the TNI article. 7 is an article in a fashion and entertainment magazine called Something Haute.  I don't know much about the source, but we seem to have used it extensively in articles about Pakistan.  It is a short and critical review of the film, pointing out the poor quality animation.  That said, negative reviews are still reviews and work to establish notability.  9 is an article in something called Kaleej Mag.  I haven't been able to learn much about this source, it seems to be a magazine founded in Lahore in 2009.  It shares a name with a newspaper from the UAE which is much better known, and it's sometimes hard to tell if which publication is being referred to elsewhere.  I have no idea if this magazine meets RS or not.  It is a longer article, with many screenshots from the film.  It is not word for word the press release I dealt with earlier, but its structure and content is similar and I think it may have been based off that.  I'm not inclined to assign much weight to this source because I'm not familiar enough with the publication and it reminds me of the press release.  11 is from Gulf News.  It's short, only 3 paragraphs, but does provide some information not provided by other sources.
 * This film definitely does not meet the criteria at WP:NFILMS, but it doesn't have to. I think the TNI article, source 7, and source 11, combined with the passing mentions in sources 6 and 12, indicate it passes WP:GNG.  I also think it's highly likely that there would be additional non-English (perhaps Urdu) sources.  If someone can find a few of those it would help build the case for notability.  That said, there is significant coverage in reliable sources (3 of them) that are independent of the subject; leading me to come down with a weak keep. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 02:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Than you ONUnicorn Sir for the breif response as you said the article might be in urdu "yes they are and they will be published in different urdu newspaper and blogs" such as independent urdu, jang , dawn news urdu , ary and samaa tv. the thing is timely needed the articles and films comes/published slowly slowly. also the PDF one is actually a newspaper of the news london edition. i will try to add urdu sources if i found by searching in urdu language. I understand that article is weak or having weak references but i saw 4 to 5 articles recently here in wikipedia who's having pages here since 2015 and they have only 5 references (2 from gulf news, the news) , (1 from somethinghaute) , (1 from dawn) and one from (the express tribune). i'm having three references of that news in my article, rests remaining two will come.

May God bless you sirپاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ONUnicorn, thanks for the detailed reply. Since you have already rebutted most of the sources above, I will not talk about them. Among the sources 7, 9, and 11 that you have used to !vote a weak keep. Both 7 and 9 (Something haute) and (Khaleej Mag) are tableau/blog type sites, who may have even accepted money from the film PR agency to publish the coverage. These 2 sites should not be considered a reliable source and I have doubts about its independence. Regarding 11, gulf times indeed is a reliable source but it is only covering the notable incident and only gives a trivial one para and 2 line coverage to the movie. We cannot keep the article based on these 3 sources. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello DBigXray Kindly don't defame something haute or any other blogs or website until you don't know about them if something haute had accepted money to write the film review they would have given a review in positive but some thing haute says the animation is weak, they posted about film after gulf news tweeted about this film. i can post here 10+ articles of wikipedia films where people are using something haute references too. Gulf News is wrote about the film clearly that a film on abhinandan capture made by DJ Kamal Mustafa it is enough for the reference. there are other articles in urdu newspapers / news websites as well i will add later once i get time i'm ill at the moment i'm writing this it in very hard condition. Galaxy lollywood, oye yeah , brand synario , the news international and something haute are enough references to show because they are big masala magazines / news websites / film magazine of pakistan and if you are opposing this then you need to delete 10+ or more then 50 articles because those films are having same references as "operation swift retort" has.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC) UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails all the criteria of Notability (films). Non notable film and non notable director published on Youtube. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolute Keep: The article is clearly full of citations. Googinber1234 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree with QuiteUnusual's analysis of the sources. Reyk YO! 16:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per QU's thorough source assessment. -- Begoon 17:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Per ONUnicorn's analysis of the sourcing I don't think it meets the GNG (though not by much). Rockphed (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.