Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam2


 * 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. Apart from Chewbaca75, there is only one other "keep" opinion, and it is so terse that I can't assign it any weight.  Sandstein  06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam2

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was PROD'ed last year and was undeleted after its creator challenged the PROD. Article still fails to meet WP:N. Rilak (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No secondary source coverage. -- TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  12:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do NOT Delete I am not sure what you mean by "No secondary source coverage". But this is a worthwhile article documenting a bootloader used on millions of consumer ADSL routers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbaca75 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being widely used does not satisfy WP:N, which requires articles to demonstrate that their topics have received non-trivial attention in reliable sources. Rilak (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge and keep the redirect: significant subject. –SJ + 19:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Adam2 is a "significant topic", then where are the references? Rilak (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_router_firmware_projects
 * Http://sites.google.com/site/zigfisher/Home/sinus-154-dsl-se
 * Http://www.keywordspy.ca/organic/keyword.aspx?q=adam2
 * Http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/ADAM2
 * Http://th.asiaonline.com/article?article=ADAM2
 * Http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK338&=&q=Adam2+bootloader&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=
 * Http://www.routertech.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3572
 * A Wikipedia article, someone's personal website, two Wikipedia mirrors, an article on a human gene called ADAM2, a Google search results page, and the website of the organization behind Adam2 does not demonstrate notability per WP:N. Additionally, of the six sources that are about the bootloader, five cannot be considered reliable sources under any circumstances per WP:RS. Rilak (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretations, and my objection remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbaca75 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What are your reasons for disagreeing with my interpretation of WP:N and WP:RS? Rilak (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By my interpretation of this definition: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Adam2 and Pspboot demonstrate notability. Just because the articles thereon on Wikipedia have not yet attracted numerous references does not negate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbaca75 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim that Adam2 and Pspboot demonstrate notability. How? You have not produced any evidence that demonstrates the two said topics have received any attention in reliable sources. You also claim that I am arguing for the deletion of the articles about Adam2 and Pspboot because these articles (and not the topics) are not notable. I've said this: Being widely used does not satisfy WP:N, which requires articles to demonstrate that their topics have received non-trivial attention in reliable sources. and this If Adam2 is a "significant topic", then where are the references? How does these statements support your claim? Rilak (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have given the definition that I rely on. Now we are going around in circles. I think I have said enough. Delete the articles if you so decide - after all, I have no control over what anyone does with them. But my objections remain and I think that I have sufficiently stated my reasons for objecting. If my objections are overruled by the powers that be, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbaca75 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep - It may need some specialised knowledge to properly research the subject but it is clearly significant. Mark  Dask  05:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How is Adam2 "clearly significant"? Where is the coverage that demonstrates its notability? A lot of comments are being made about the "great significance" of this topic, yet it is a challenge for those who make such claims to present evidence demonstrating such. Why? Could it be that there is no coverage of Adam2 in reliable secondary sources? Could the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources be the reason why a Wikipedia article, of all things, is given as a reference in the article and presented as evidence of notability in this discussion? I think the answer to both questions is yes, unless someone can prove otherwise. Rilak (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking what Chewbaca says (used on millions of routers) on good faith I think Adam2 is a significant software. The article has not existed for very long so should simply tagged as "Unsourced". Mark   Dask  14:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If someone said, "Delete - The topic is clearly not notable because I think Rilak nominated this article for deletion in good faith," what would you say? And I'm not going to comment on your second point. It's an absurd response. Rilak (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think me absurd. My point is that the topic may well be worthy of inclusion if the software is in common, albeit specialised use. It harms nobody simply to point up the lack of sources with the unreferenced tag and leave it. Why are you so keen to see it die now? The fact that you personally cant source it does not mean it cannot be sourced - just means it needs a specialist. Mark   Dask  11:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1). You don't know whether the topic is worthy for inclusion or not, that's why you said it "may well be worthy of inclusion".
 * 2). You don't know whether the software is in common use or not, that's why you said "if the software is in common, albeit specialised use", not that it's relevant because, as I've said at the start of this "debate", WP:N doesn't care if x is common or not, so long as there is significant coverage of x in reliable sources.
 * 3). You think if someone can't find sources, its their fault, despite the fact that the folks who voted keep and Chewbaca (the article's creator and champion) can't or won't provide references or directions to them either (gee, I wonder, could it be that there are no sources?!)
 * 4). You imply that there's something more sinister behind this AfD by questioning my motives. I can do the same. Why are you so keen on keeping this article?
 * Once again, I find myself repeating something I'm tired of saying: Where are the references that demonstrate notability? Rilak (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to question your motives, I simply meant that neither you nor I, who know little about the subject, are perhaps the best judges as to whether to keep or not, and if we cant source it then I think an unsourced tag is sufficient. I agree that Chewbaca should find sources since it was he who wrote the article. So Chewbaca, can you tell us where we can read up on this stuff? Books are legitimate sources as long as they can be tracked down and the relevant sections/ISBNs identified. Would you agree with that Rilak? Mark  Dask  04:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I know so very little about boot loaders, to the point where I can't be expected to find sources if they exist, then why is it such a trivial exercise for me to find sources about GRUB? Or did you mean that one has to be an expert on Adam2 in order to properly assess its notability? If that is the case, wouldn't your position on how notability ought to be judged permit me (and everyone else) to create an unreferenced article on X, and have that article exist on Wikipedia for as long as Wikipedia stands (with an unreferenced tag applied, of course), because no one is sufficiently informed to challenge the notability of X?
 * Finally, I don't understand why you expect Chewbaca75 to inform us of coverage of Adam2 in something like a book at this stage. He was asked to provide coverage of Adam2 that demonstrates notability. His answer consisted of what? A Wikipedia article, a personal website, a few mirrors of this very Wikipedia article, an irrelevant article on a human gene called ADAM2, a Google search results page, and documentation. You said that the author of the article is the most knowledgeable on the topic, and therefore can be expected to find sources when everyone else can't. So why has he not produced any sources? I'm asking this question again and again. Your answer seems to be that unless I can exhaustively prove that no coverage exists then coverage does exists. I can't exhaustively prove that an invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist and I don't have evidence that it does, nor does anyone else. Therefore, we should believe there is an invisible pink unicorn lurking in this AfD right now, shouldn't we? Rilak (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Chewbaca75 (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If your example is GRUB, then you should be satisfied with this list - after all, all the references listed in the GRUB entry are online, and are to similar sources as these:
 * http://www.seattlewireless.net/ADAM2
 * http://ar7.wikispaces.com/ADAM2
 * http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showthread.php?p=22260843
 * http://ar7.altervista.org/dsl-302t.htm#adam2
 * http://www.dlinkpedia.net/software/adam2.php
 * http://wiki.ip-phone-forum.de/software:ds-mod:development:adam2
 * http://www.beyondlogic.org/nb5/ADAM2_bootloader.htm
 * http://www.beyondlogic.org/nb5/ADAM2_ftp.htm
 * http://mag32.net/adam2app.php
 * http://www.ip-phone-forum.de/showthread.php?t=128485
 * http://oldwiki.openwrt.org/ADAM2.html
 * http://www.wehavemorefun.de/fritzbox/index.php/ADAM2
 * Very funny. I was thinking more along the lines of this: "GRUB is the bootloader most commonly used to start installed Linux systems." &mdash; on page 2 (coverage continues on to page 15), from Linux Troubleshooting for System Administrators and Power Users by James Kirkland et al., published by Prentice Hall PTR, 2006. Just because you can find sources for GRUB that are of equivalent usefulness (for establishing notability) to the ones you found for Adam2 does not rule out that there are better ones out there. Rilak (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep  I am gratified that you have no argument left other than that "there are better ones out there". First, the argument was that there are no references. The above list was produced by a single search, and took less than 2 minutes to collate. Obviously, you didn't look hard enough. I now sign out of this second pointless debate. Life is too short. Chewbaca75 (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, I have no idea what you are on about. You said, "If your example is GRUB, then you should be satisfied with this list - after all, all the references listed in the GRUB entry are online, and are to similar sources as these: [long list of irrelevant sources follow]". You seem to have confused what I have said before, "If I know so very little about boot loaders, to the point where I can't be expected to find sources if they exist, then why is it such a trivial exercise for me to find sources about GRUB?" with something along the lines of, "I think GRUB is notable because it has references", which you extrapolated to: if the GRUB references are of the same sort as Adam2, and Rilak thinks GRUB is notable, then Adam2 is notable too, and Rilak is therefore being a fool. Of course, I said no such thing. Rilak (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying you're a fool Rilak - your argumnt is sound, except the invisible unicorn is more red than pink. Delete. Mark   Dask  21:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for the Adam2 bootloader in a "book", then see Christian Paulsen, "Sicherheit in vernetzten Systemen", pp9-10 (ISBN 978-3-8423-4389-4 DFN-CERT Srvices GmbH, Hamburg 2011) Chewbaca75 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is the proceedings of a workshop. There are ten papers lettered A to J, and the page numbers are in a alphanumerical form, with the letter corresponding to the paper. You only mentioned pages ten to nine. Using Google Books to search for "RouterTech" and "Router Tech" returns nothing. I'm not going to look at pages nine and ten of every paper and I don't think any other editor will be willing to either. So can you please be more specific?


 * Also, according to Google Books, the book is published by Books on Demand GmbH, which, while its website does not explicitly confirm, appears to be a vanity press. The policy regarding vanity press-published books is WP:V - specifically the WP:SPS section. In a nutshell, such books are not reliable sources, and as such, is not evidence for notability. That said, it seems that the book is the proceedings of a workshop hosted by the German Research Network Computer Emergency Response Team so it might not be such a clear cut case. Finally, the book is in German, so it will be difficult to evaluate. Rilak (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuses, excuses. Chewbaca75 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not excuses Chewbaca - if the best you, the author of the article, can do is to cite an obscure German publication then it follows that Adam2 is indeed un-notable to the English speaking public. Surely you can find an English text on the subject.  Mark   Dask  10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, this is not the best that I can do. Enough has been provided above, and I contend that they fully demonstrate notability - a contention that I stand by. Someone is obsessed with "books". To give him the benefit of the doubt, I gave him the full details of a "book" (easy enough to find) - and he responds with new demands. He cannot be bothered to find the requisite pages and read them. The publication is not in English - and some new excuse in the pipeline? This is called the fallacy of Moving the goalposts. "Surely you can find an English text on the subject". Yes. They are listed above - and there are hundreds more. But it is already clear that this debate is a complete waste of time. Chewbaca75 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel the debate is futile - the article will probably be kept based on your defence of it. The purpose of the debate is to get the best from the available sources - you argue well but in my view there should be more substantial coverage of Adam2 in such places as http://www.seattlewireless.net/ADAM2. Perhaps there are some English texts that feature Adam2 that you could cite.  Mark   Dask  19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is extremely annoying that the effort spent here could have been better spent on improving the article, or doing something else that is actually constructive. A simple search reveals tens of thousands of hits of independent coverage of Adam2 (including coverage by such projects as Openwrt, SeattleWireless,AR7wikispaces, etc). Nit-picking and obsession with "books" is what has led us here (I am sure that the Openwrt, etc., and other such projects, that have written about this topic would really be pleased that they are not considered "reliable" sources by someone here). Such an approach is counter-productive and a waste of time. Surely, editors can better spend their time looking for more trivial articles to delete? "Perhaps there are some English texts that feature Adam2 that you could cite". Yes, there are literally thousands of them, and a few of them are above. I am not going to spend any more time on this. In any case, what is the point citing them if they will simply be dismissed, and the goalpost moved? What is the obsession with "books"? Everything that I have posted here is the result of a simple Google search, and then spending about 2 minutes max looking through the results. The small selection posted above shows significant coverage in at least 3 languages (English included). Do trivial topics attract such coverage? How many wikipedia articles are on a subject that is covered so widely in so many languages? Why would anyone carry on trying to delete a topic that shows global coverage? Is that a good use of anyone's time (including my time defending this)? The answer is NO. That is why this debate is (or, at least, has become) a complete waste of time. Let the admins make a decision, and let the rest of us get on with our lives. If they choose to delete Adam2, or Pspboot, or RouterTech, then so be it. Life is too short. Chewbaca75 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.