Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil in the window

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in the window

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

Non-notable film with no coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 14:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Bovineboy2008 says, there's no evidence of substantial coverage in independent sources or other basis for this to pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). Another in a group of related articles that read like marketing material and provide no independent evidence of notability; I have also looked on my own and found none. Possibly an instance of WP:TOOSOON. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There's just nothing out there to show that this film passes notability guidelines. It could be userfied, but it'd be best done by a non-WP:COI editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF and is TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when the film is released and gets independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:55, 29 May 2014 (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.