Talk:Cinderella (2015 Indian film)

This page was proposed for deletion by 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:4960:C4EB:517D:AC0D (talk · contribs) on 7 July 2023 with the comment:
Fails WP:NFILM, none of the sources are reliable (except The Times of India, which is also in question per WP:TOI, and it is only a database entry).
It was contested by Mushy Yank (talk · contribs) on 2023-07-07 with the comment:
Deletion would have been FAR from uncontroversial, quite the opposite: page is reasonably sourced and film seems notable; Rm 8 years ago.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cinderella (2015 Indian film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 15 December 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). sst✈^(discuss) 06:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella (2015 Indian film) → Cinderella (2015 film from India) – We need it clear that this is a film made in India, not a version of Cinderella where the characters are Native Americans. Georgia guy (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCF - "In the rare case that multiple films of the same name are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin". I don't think anyone is thinking the characters are Native Americans. There are several films using this, such as Sixteen (2013 Indian film) and Michael (2011 Indian film), for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find it difficult to believe your reason to oppose. To most Americans, the primary meaning of the term "Indian" is Native American people. Georgia guy (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if you find it difficult or not. I'm sure I can make sweeping statements about "most Americans" but I won't. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lugnuts. Agree with their reasoning. No one will think the characters are Native Americans. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that to many Americans, "of India" is the primary meaning of the word "Indian"?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per precedent; Category:Indian films and its sub-categories including "Indian" have existed for a long time without issue. While some readers may wrongly define "Indian", I don't think it is a prevalent enough concern to warrant Wikipedia accommodating them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anything whose title doesn't include the word "Indian" that you see this as an analogy to a page move of?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding the question. Can you rephrase it differently? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like, suppose this was a proposed move of 1 to 1 AD and 1 (number) to 1. It would be an analogy of moving 2000 to 2000 AD and 2000 (number) to 2000. Georgia guy (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good try, but not really. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCF and the reasons stated above. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; Compare articles with 'Indian Film' in the title and articles with 'film from India' in the title. This should tell you which is the right form to use. InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere} 04:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ridiculous. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 13:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.