Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Department of Mad Scientists

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 keep‎. Here's hoping, again, that these sources find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Mad Scientists[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources. Two ELs that are not WP:IS. Fails WP:GNG. An WP:ATD would be to redirect to Michael Belfiore. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Technology, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have had book reviews/ discussions [1] and [2] Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep While Oaktree b has, indeed, found coverage (the NYT review is a bit rambling but is nevertheless a review - the Atlantic piece references the book but is not - AFAICS - dedicated to it), it's not quite enough. There's this NPR interview but it is an interview, which doesn't really help us with WP:GNG. Frankly, I'm amazed you could write a book about DARPA and NOT get way bigger coverage than this - it's an amazing and huge subject (they invented the Internet, right?). Anyone roots out one more review and I'm team 'keep' but right now I can't find it and the article is a miserable little thing that has been miserable for too long. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help [3]? Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whole bunch turn up in Gscholar using the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the following reviews:

Saletan, William (24 December 2009). "The Body Electric". New York Times.
Tatu, Robin (January 2010). "Crucible of Innovation". ASEE Prism. 19 (5): 50.
Simonite, Tom (2009). "Review: The Department of Mad Scientists by Michael Belfiore". New Scientist. 204: 56. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(09)62944-4. ISSN 0262-4079.
Pitt, David (2009). "The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA Is Remaking Our World, from the Internet to Artificial Limbs (Book review)". Booklist. 106 (4). American Library Association: 8. ISSN 0006-7385.

The last of these is rather short, but throwing it into the pile probably doesn't hurt. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2023 (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.