Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Caterpillar Wish


 * 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 keep. Tone 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The Caterpillar Wish

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable film, won an award which another editor claims isn't significant enough to remove the notability tag. I couldn't find much else in a search to help remove the tag...so let's let AfD do its job. If it passes, the tag goes. If it fails, the article goes. Thanks Donaldd23 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in RS:, , , , , , . Presumably the award referred to in the nom is Australian Film Institute ' s award for best supporting actress. Seems like that would confer notability too, but it's largely a moot point because there's plenty of other coverage besides. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * keep Finding non-trivial coverage for this film Passes WP:NFSOURCES Wm335td (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:NF with significant coverage in multiple reviews. Thank you AleatoryPonderings for locating additional sources. I wouldn't have mentioned 2, 3, 5 and 6 because they either have very brief coverage of this film or are not independent .  I do understand that some editors feel a large number of sources satisfies notability. I located two reviews that seem helpful if the sources are reliable:,  and this murdoch.edu web page has a great deal of useful information & a review but I doubt it would be considered a reliable source. Gab4gab (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as there has been enough additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2020 (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.