Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Klutz Book of Paper Airplanes

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. So Why 07:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Klutz Book of Paper Airplanes

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

This article fails both the notability WP:N and promotion WP:PROMOTION tests. There are many, many books about paper airplanes and this one is not particularly special. Mgolden (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This book has received a short review in Publisher's Weekly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mysteriously, this is actually the only book on paper airplanes I own (have had it for a decade) but it's clearly not very special, not in that there are many books about paper airplanes, but in after doing further research, I have discovered that many of the designs included in the book are frankly unoriginal. If the paper airplanes were original, it would be a keep based on the longevity of the print run as well as having the Klutz branding, but it does not, so...Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little significant coverage in independent sources. Northamerica1000's link does warrant coverage but it isn't in-depth enough. DrStrauss talk 16:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG worse that I had expected. I own this book as well. My headhunters never flew straight :( L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:09, 1 August 2017 (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.