Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strings (Unix)

Strings (Unix)

This article fails to establish notability an consists solely of original research and how-to information. Any number of references are available describing how to use the command, but very few are available describing the history of the command, the evolution of the software, and so on -- that is, no references are available which would result in an encyclopeidc article. Since none of the material here is referenced, merger is not an option. Mikeblas (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I certainly don't see any unsolvable problems with this article. References could probably be found if someone had requested them (hint, hint), and I don't see any significant original research or how-to material in the article. It's a short stub - there simply isn't room for that in it right now. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The program is reasonably notable, and I could add to it myself. For example, strings is a great way to find passwords or other secret text compiled into a binary program. It's a reasonable stub as-is. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The program comes with every Linux distribution. It is on millions of computers. It is notable. Perhaps the article could be expanded to include some history though. -- Frap (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Passes WP:N, fails WP:NOTGUIDE. I think that we can make a useful article here. Give it a chance. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we hold for 24 hours to allow a chance for rewrite? strings is used in forensics and troubleshooting, password retrieval, a bunch of other applications, it's definitely notable even though the article isn't really portraying that. Kate (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that will be really necessary, since this isn't going to get WP:SNOW closed as delete and AfDs run substantially longer than that in the nominal case. I'd go ahead and start rewriting, maybe add a {{rescue}} tag too. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - poorly written article, but a notable piece of software --T-rex 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historically part of Unix OSs, limited scope but handy tool that every sysadmin has to use once in a while. Niczar ⏎ 19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite Agreed, the article's subject is notable but its current presentation is problematic. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite per Mendaliv. --Mperry (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]