Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Character of Physical Law

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Character of Physical Law

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

Not notable. Lecture series from 50 years ago that was transcribed as a book. That is the extent of it's notability in reliable sources. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind to keep and I also think consensus is clear. Is there a way to wrap this up now, so we don't waste the time of other editors? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found and added a book review to the External links section. I think the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NB. The lecture series is probably the most famous of Cornell University's Messenger Lectures. Bill Gates bought the videos and made them available to the public in 2009. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all of that is accurate then I guess we just need to find some RS's and note those things in the article. I couldn't find any when I looked. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found some reviews in the typical academic circuits when I looked, although I will say that a lot of academic journal reviews will not show up in Google searches or if they do, will typically look like non-usable sources at first glance. (This is because most of them will just list the review by the book's title, which gives off the impression that the link is just the book itself.) That's why I usually use my school's database with stuff like this, a luxury I know that not everyone has. I added a few reviews to the article and I found some more reviews here and here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the best and most enjoyable lectures on the topic. This is even one where non-physicists might have heard of it. Clearly notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is part of a series on the works and lectures of Dr. Feynman, 1965 Nobel Prize winner in Physics. Hopefully, some knowledgeable editor will come along and give it the detailed expansion it deserves. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep please as nominator has withdrawn nomination. Anyway, meets WP:GNG as is with good references added recently. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (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.