Deletion of Physics of the Impossible

Comment: Obviously notable, a quick google search turns up extensive writing about the book.  http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/physics-of-the-impossible-by-michio-kaku-859665.html http://physics.about.com/od/physicsbooks/gr/impossphysics.htm http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3675495.ece  To the nominator... there is no need to extensively quote policy, a link to  is plenty.  I hope you don't mind that I did so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB)

Comment: A New York Times bestseller,  #10 in its category http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/books/bestseller/bestpapernonfiction.html?scp=7&sq=%22physics%20of%20the%20impossible%22&st=cse, with lengthy reviews from several reliable and independent sources. Satisfies . Satisfies criterion #1 of B
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NB)

Comment: I am starting to notice a trend lately of lots of articles being taken to AfD that are patently invalid candidates that a two second search would reveal. This is enshrined Relatively new user and those not very familiar with deletion process may not be aware that in multiple policy strongly recommends that users look for sources first before taking an article to AfD, e.g., from AfD: "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Articles taken to AfD are often improved by the process, though a better way of cleaning them up is through normal editing processes AfD is not an article cleanup brigade and this is a waste of everyone's time. We look first—not at what's in the article but what's in the wider world ''before nominating''. This AfD is a sterling example of why that should be followed. The subject here is patently notable as a quick search of easily accessed online sources shows. For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22physics%20of%20the%20impossible%22%20kaku&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&tab=nw 101,000 web hits for the name in quotes and the author to avoid false positives; http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=ysP&ei=1VEnSsyeBeq-twebxLTsBg&resnum=0&q=%22physics%20of%20the%20impossible%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp 14 other books discussing it when it only came out in 2008; http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22physics+of+the+impossible%22+kaku&cf=all 71 Google news hits; http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=%22Physics+of+the+Impossible%22&submit.x=15&submit.y=9&submit=sub 19 articles in the New York Times where it is a bestseller; #881 at Amazon (that is astronomical). If this doesn't meet  I don't know what does (and I wrote ). This meets  in spades and should probably be |snowed as there no reason to keep it open longer than necessary simply for processes' sake
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK||WP:BK||WP:SNOW)