Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dcfldd

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 merge to Dd (Unix). —Darkwind (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dcfldd

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

possible copyvio of http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Dcfldd teratogen (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics wiki is released under a CC-BY-SA license, so attribution is necessary, but we are otherwise good in that field. I haven't checked it for other problems. Ryan Vesey 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the introductory text and replaced it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swestlake (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're good with regard to the copyvio. I'm still far from convinced the article meets WP:NOTE, however. —me_and 10:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with dd (Unix): Hi. A merge would certainly solve notability problem without adding much to the size of the target article (because this article has a lot of fluff) but only if the target article itself is notable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with a number of wikipedia pages related to dd. There's also a dead link about Wikiproject computers- 'Computer redirects' to assist me in understanding about making ambiguity pages. I would like to help by proposing a new page since Dump (program) can also be used as a computer science verb, and I need to use the word 'dump' in dcfldd's article page for describing it (which is why there's short of introductory material to it because the word dump is a computer jargon verb). The comparison of clones software page is a mess and technically inaccurate (so I left a post on it's talk page). Dump (Computer data cloning) should be warranted it's one page since it differs from the word 'cloning' (Dump is a form of absolute strict cloning-- I can't use the word cloning for describing the operation of dcfldd, and the 'dd' article needs improvement which I'll try to contribute to). I see the possibility of making new pages, one called Dump (Computer data cloning), Dump (ambiguity), and keep Dump (program), and possibly a 'List of Cloning tools (dump method)'. Dump is a form of cloning. The english word 'cloning' does not imply strict-cloning but 'dump' does(I'm in the field and use this word when speaking). I'd like to hear what other wikipedians can do to help me learn more about how I can contribute more of what I do know because there's inaccuracies and mistakes that are being made on. On the disk-cloning page, I think that table shouldn't exist for dump-only tools since all the filesystem fields should be blank. (dd and dcfldd are filesystem-agnostic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dump_(program)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software

Let me know if it's not too much of an inconvenience for other wikipedians if I create new wikipedia pages, but I'm not going to be dishonest and simply say I agree with the accuracy of the present wikipedia pages just so that I can keep the dcfldd article. If I'm going to put an effort into more descriptions about dcfldd, then there'll have to be changes to other pages. The word 'dumping' is used and is becoming more popular. There's also a need of refinement for [ Iso image ] and descriptions about it pertaining to 'hybrid iso'. A topic related to the example I point out in dcfldd. If I roll out all the changes I want to make I wouldn't want to create a storm of any sort. Please let me know if I can make the edits I would like to do so that I can improve the dcfldd article.

Swestlake (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. So that pretty much puts merge out of question, right? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the above is irrelevant to whether dcfldd should be deleted/merged/retained/other. I believe Swestlake is saying there are technical inaccuracies in other Wikipedia articles in this area. I don't think that prevents us merging dcfldd into dd (Unix), though, merely that doing so isn't the end of story (ie business as usual).

Personally, I'm in favour of a nominal "merge", by which I mean mention dcfldd in dd (Unix), but no more than a sentence or two, and replace dcfldd with a redirect to dd (Unix) or to the specific section mentioning dcfldd.

—me_and

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The programs gets 137 hits on Google scholar and about 360 hits on Google Books. The books The Best Damn Cybercrime and Digital Forensics Book Period has an in depth (several pages) discussion of the program, as does Defense Against the Black Arts. Two more books Penetration Tester's Open Source Toolkit and Digital Forensics with Open Source Tools both have 1-3 paragraphs apiece on the program. Multiple reliable sources, two of them in depth, demonstrate the notability of the topic according to WP:GNG. Notability of the topic and no insurmountable problems with the article suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The books you've linked to seem to primarily cover how to use dcfldd; I'm not convinced they "address the subject directly in detail". I don't think the hit count is relevant, even in Google Scholar. —me_and 00:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced that description of program features and how and when use the program and its features is addressing the subject directly in detail, as direct a description of a computer program as you can get without quoting source code. WP:NOTHOWTO advises that WP articles should not be howto guides, but it places no such restrictions on sources and point 1 on that page says Describing to the reader how other people or things use something is encyclopedic. While Google hits generally aren't useful in deciding notability, in the WP:HITS#Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia section it is written that Google Scholar provides evidence of how many times a publication, document, or author has been cited or quoted by others. Google books is similar. While these do not establish notability by themselves, they can contribute evidence toward it, especially for technical topics such as forensic analysis of storage devices. --Mark viking (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking or merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Diego (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources that Mark viking found do seem to show notability for the subject. I don't know if it's enough to warrant a separate article, it is relevant enough to dd itself that it wouldn't be out of place in that article either, but I don't think deletion is warranted as it meets WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 07:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. I've been noncommittal so far, but I'll pin my colours to the mast now. And I'll note a number of the "keep"s above seemed happy with a merge. —me_and 09:55, 15 April 2013 (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.