Category:People with acquired citizenship (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The parent (container) category and multiple subcategories for individual countries were merged with Category:Naturalized citizens by country. There are several ways to acquire citizenship of a country other than "naturalization", the precise definition of which varies by country but generally includes a requirement that the person is normally resident and working in the country, and may involve some kind of cultural knowledge test. Depending on local laws there are other ways to acquire citizenship of a country, for example by ancestry, or by investment, or even by outright bribery. Many have acquired Maltese citizenship by investment, for example, but that doesn't make them naturalized Maltese. This merge was ill thought out, had minimal participation, and has had many unforeseen consequences. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not much of a CfD follower, but it looks like this same argument was raised in the CfD and other !voters rejected it. That is, it looks like the argument here is that consensus was clear... but incorrect on the merits. Is that right? If not, what am I missing? Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous discussions was closed after very limited involvement and without proper consideration of the issues it would created, such as Category:Naturalised citizens of Saint Kitts and Nevis, all of whom are basically dodgy businessmen who've probably never visited the country in their life. This is a very ill thought out merge, and should be reversed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to User:Jclemens - That is how it looks to me. I don't think DRV is CFD round 2 either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ... ... ... Is it common at CFD to add pages to discussions after they're already closed, like this? That wouldn't be tolerated at any other deletion venue, whether it had been tagged or not. —Cryptic 03:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly not normal, but appears to have been done by the closer, rather than a nominator. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It happens quite often in bulk nominations, when many pages are tagged, that one or two of them are then overlooked when manually compiling the list in the nomination. If anyone had visited the tagged category, they would have found the CFD template there with the correct link to the nomination, so they could have commented in the discussion – probably without even noticing that the category was missing from the list. It's my regular practice to belatedly correct the gap in the nomination in such cases, if I find it when implementing the rest, so that the discussion can be found by "What links here" rather than having to go through the page history. Likewise, I would belatedly correct other errors in the list, e.g. mistyped category names, for the same reason. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, DRV is not XFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support reversing merge "People with acquired citizenship" is plainly more neutral and accurate. I also question whether consensus was fully established in the first place; the jus sanguinis issue was mentioned but not clearly resolved. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse - DRV is not CFD round 2. The result was wrong, but that is not within the scope of DRV. The close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer: I believe I correctly found the consensus of the discussion. It had been open for 3 weeks, and the principal opposer Buidhe had stopped replying. I implemented the close by redirecting the merged categories, which I hope will be helpful if a subsequent CFD discussion results in consensus to undo the merge or to merge in the reverse direction. I merged the Wikidata items in a few cases, but only where there were no other Wikipedias with both categories. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to the people saying "DRV is not CFD round 2", is this catchphrase more important than improving the encyclopedia? Because a lot of people have now been defined as "naturalized" citizens of some country or other when they are nothing of the sort. This was a fairly obscure discussion that most people weren't even aware of and where valid objections were ridden over roughshod by the tyrrany of the majority. WP:IAR applies here, is the encyclopedia actually better as a result of the merge? Because I think it is significantly worse. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MaxBrowne2, if that is the problem, then the correct procedure is to start a new CfD discussion, not to contest a valid close. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Swift Retort (short film) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Received a challenge to a G4-based speedy deletion basically claiming that the new article had been created with permission. The article Operation Swift Retort (film) was deleted in 2019 following an AFD discussion. Another article on the same subject was created in 2021, and I accepted the speedy deletion request in 2024 since I found the subject matter, and sourcing too be much the much the same, even though the prose was different. Submitting for review whether my application of G4 was appropriate, and as always with reviews on my deletions, I will take a neutral stance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer my perspective on this matter. This film is not self-promotional or fake; it is officially associated with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The film's production was authorized by the PAF, as reported by Gulf News and other news outlets.[1]

The film has been broadcast on several television channels:

92 News (2020)

Samaa TV (2022)

ARY News (2023)

Channel 24 (2024)

There are numerous mentions of the film and the filmmaker in 17 Urdu newspapers (Roznama 92 News, Dunya News, Express, etc.)[2][3] Also Urdu news outlets (Daily Pakistan, Urdu Point, etc.)https://www.roznama92news.com/efrontend/web/index.php/?station_id=1&page_id=6&is_common=&xdate=2023-10-21. The film's notability is further evidenced by coverage in English-language sources:

Geo News[4]

Gulf News[5]

The News International[6]

The News International (Newspaper and In-step magazine)[7]

Pakistan Observer[8]

Dunya News[9]

These sources are not paid endorsements and do not include disclaimers. These are primary and I can provide 10 more references that are secondary.

In 2020, three editors suggested that while the film may not warrant its own Wikipedia page, it should be mentioned on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page. Consequently, a brief, referenced description of the film was added. However, this edit was reversed by Saqib in 2024 approx after 5 years, who deemed it promotional and removed the film's name without providing a clear reason. I have brought this to the attention of an administrator, along with evidence of the film's prior inclusion on the page.

I question how an edit made in 2020 could suddenly be considered promotional in 2024, especially when multiple editors were aware of the film's presence and raised no concerns. It appears that Saqib may have a bias against content related to the armed forces.

I believe administrators should determine whether the film deserves its own page. If not, I urge them to revert Saqib's edit and reinstate the brief description of Operation Swift Retort on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page, as it was originally added in 2020. The film is notable, official, and the only animated film produced in Pakistan in 2019. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting temp undeletion of both the (film) and (short film) titles. Public log shows creation in May 2023 and deletion in July 2024. I find it difficult, though not impossible, to believe that an article would stand and presumably be edited for over a year and still be subject to G4. Frank Anchor 13:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the pages are restored at Operation Swift Retort (film) (for the original version deleted in 2019), and Operation Swift Retort (short film) (for the version under discussion here). Access the page history for the contents. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Frank Anchor 16:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The version deleted at afd (since there's been g4s at the (film) title too) is here. —Cryptic 18:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sjakkalle, May I ask if this undeletion request was made by email? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Yes, it was. I am not at liberty to discuss contents of emails however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Frank Anchor please add some Urdu references which are available in 2023 and not in 2020. Please also check 2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes section where this film has mentioned there as per the 3 editors who were agreed earlier on that a section should be there so it would be great if the section has been restore too.

  Geo News, Dunya News, Gulf News are enough to show the notability while in extra it has 92 News, Daily Pakistan, UK Film review, Urdu Point, The News International and others. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Firstly, if this SPI report confirms, the master account is Dj1kamal which was blocked in 2015, (see this) making these two creations (Operation Swift Retort (film) and Operation Swift Retort (short film)) violations under G5. However, if we disregard this aspect, this is an advertisement and PROMO article created by a blocked @Devoter and Memon KutianaWala, to boost the profile of DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film. Upon reviewing the sources cited on this article, much of the coverage either falls within the WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or consists of routine/ROTM coverage lacking independent, in-depth/significant coverage. Given that DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film, is also a journalist, he has been successful in garnering some press coverage for his short movie, however, the coverage still falls short of meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:SIGCOV. An article on same topic was created under different titles such as Operation Swift Retort (film), Operation Swift Retort (short film), Operation Swift Retort (2019 Film) and finally deleted in 2019 via AFD with a clear consensus in favor of deletion. It appears most of the references currently being cited in this article were also debated in the previous AFD and none of them could satisfy the GNG. Yet they're shamelessly promoting this and their other works on pages like this, this and this.
  Fwiw, these articles has seen significant editing activity by blocked socks, suggesting it was in clear violation of WP:TOU and and there was also repeated attempts to create a BLP on DJ Kamal Mustafa which was also deleted via AfDs here, here, here as well here. And I'm unsure what's this about? Furthermore, DJ Kamal has sent me multiple off-wiki physical and legal threats, with evidence available upon request via email.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 as the two versions are not sufficiently identical (There is at least one reference in the new version that postdates the version deleted at AFD). However, I would support speedy deletion as G5 as the article creator and most significant contributors are blocked socks. No objection to any good-faith attempt to recreate this page, though I am not convinced this DRV was made in good faith. Frank Anchor 18:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose salting any title. Frank Anchor 10:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4/Keep deleted as G5 per Frank Anchor. Having the same defects isn't enough for G4, it really has to be substantially the same article--that is, without any substantive changes--for G4 to count. Anything else may well be a slam dunk at AfD, but should not properly be G4'able. G5 appears to have been discovered after the fact, but would still appear to be an applicable criterion. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Overturn the G4, and send to AFD - I don't like the overturn, and there has been a lot of misconduct, but I don't see a valid speedy deletion.

• Endorse a G5 or change the speedy deletion reason. I am now satisfied that the originator was already blocked. Striking previous !vote.
  • • The (short film) and the (film) are just different enough that this isn't WP:G4.
    • The changes in the title of the article are a clear case of the gaming of titles. See also Operation Swift Retort (2019 Film).
    • Too many of the edits to the article have been by sockpuppets.
    • Salt all the titles in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• G5 would have been correct and makes the rest of this largely academic, but since the deleting admin's asking for guidance, here's some.
  There's some minimal amount of discretion in determining what changes are substantive, but I think the last version at Operation Swift Retort (short film) barely squeaks by as substantive (I haven't examined the prior G4s). The prose changes really weren't: there's no new claims of substance there, so it comes down to the references. Of those, #2, 3, 5 and 6 were in the version deleted at AFD. #1 is trivial and #4 is a copy of our article at Operation Swift Retort about the underlying event; both are very plainly not substantive changes. #7 and #8 are both written by the film's creator, are fairly promotional, and are identical, so they don't pass the laugh tests for reliability or independence. #9 contains four very brief sentences that add no information not in the other sources; I consider it within discretion too.
  Ref #10, though, I don't. I'd be astounded if it made a difference at afd - I doubt the site would be considered reliable or discriminate (what with the nagging to let them "review your film" on every page view), and am very much not impressed with the tone, depth, or professionality of the review itself - but unless there's some obvious proof I'm missing that it's user-generated-content or such, I don't think it's a clear enough call for a single admin to make.
  Not that that should stand in the way of salting, further deletions, blacklisting, or other enforcement as appropriate; there's been enough recreation by known sockpuppets that if your AGF-o-meter isn't already exhausted, there's something wrong with you. If an established, known-legitimate user wants to recreate this, the afd won't stand in the way, but if someone tries again within their first dozen, or hundred, or even several thousand edits like the Memon KutianaWala reincarnation had, too bad. —Cryptic 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but please change to a G5 reason. I think both versions of the article wouldn't survive an AFD even without the socking as the promotional odor is strong here and the sources are weak at best. I think the two versions are different enough that G4 probably shouldn't have been used - there's a lot of the same junk sources and given the rather small amount of material available, a lot of the same information and given the history of this, understandable why G4 would be used. Ravensfire (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]