Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured

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 usually support Draftification but this has been contested twice already. Should the article creator want to continue working on this article in Draft space, hopefully by finding a few reliable sources to verify this subject's notability, let me or WP:REFUND know by making a request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:V therefore not (yet) appropriate for main space 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: practically unreferenced, hence no evidence of notability, despite 5 months in the making and two AfC declines. Already previously draftified (twice), so deletion is now the only option. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, no claim of significance. Os ari us 11:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Unreferenced in its current form, and so fails verifiability, but sources almost certainly exist. This belongs to a distinct sub-genre, which is Three Little Pigs parodies. The author should be cautioned that another move to article space without sources will result in sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they have to have notability claims that would pass WP:NFILM, and they have to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the film to verify that those notability claims are true. But this demonstrates neither of those things — and it has already been draftified twice and the creator is simply moving it back into mainspace himself without listening to the reasons why it was declined at WP:CFD, so just redraftifying it again would be unproductive.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a properly sourced article about it that actually contains a notability claim, but this ain't cutting it in this form. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When deciding whether to issue a warning to an author, it makes sense to consider this AFD along with another: AFD:The Three Little Bass and the Big Bad Gar. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.