Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom Captain

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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Captain

Delete - an article on an individual chapter of a book? No. Just, no. WP:N or whatever but, come on, an article about a chapter? No. Otto4711 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm if the book itself doesnt have a page, then should this chapter? Maybe Nine Chains to the Moon should be created and this moved in there. Corpx 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I know it hasn't been made yet, but the information could be put into Nine Chains to the Moon, if the book is deemed notable. Useight 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Belongs in the main book article, which no one wants to create. Pharmboy 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 00:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crufty is a funny word, and it applies here. J-stan ^Talk 00:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the book does not have an artical I don't think a chapter should. Oyster guitarist 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Unless the book's article is enormous, there's unlikely to be a reason to create a separate article for a chapter. In this case, the article doesn't really even seem to be about the chapter, but about the vaguely defined term "phantom captain." Moreover, it's a total copyvio of the art exhibit description (see footnote 2), which is also not notable enough to warrant its own page. Because of the copyvio, I'm tagging and blanking the article per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl 12:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Onnaghar(T/C) 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the entire copntent of the page has been blanked as copy-vio, it is difficult to make any comment whatsoever. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:01, 2 August 2007 (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.