Deletion of Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Comment: WP:NOT, , . Must we have an editorial commentary on every concept ever tossed out in every best-selling book? This is beyond OR, this belongs on a blog
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: changed my mind from weak keep as I've edited it and truthfully can't pad this out any more even after re-reading chapter 4. It had way too much  so I've gutted out what I feel is the OR
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: and also look carefully at articles such as Russell's teapot, Last Thursdayism, etc.  There seems to be an increasing perception that if twenty different analogies/rhetorical figures have been used to try and make a particular point, each of those analogies should be given its own article, rather than mentioning those analogies or a reasonable subset thereof in an article which is about the point they drive to(and of course, in NPOV fashion, about the counter-point to that point.)  Even if the analogy of the "Ultimate Boeing 747" ''was'' notable enough to merit its own individual article, this article would still be bad, as pretty much everything except the direct quotes is |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)