Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md5deep


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Md5deep
Non-notable computer forensics tool --- no references in the article, no news hits ever, 2 book hits (virtually every security tool can wind up in someone's book). There are several scholar hits for the tool, but they are overwhelmingly attributed to the author of the tool and published in "forensics" journals, which are at the fringe of academic security research --- moreover, most of the journal hits simply list the tool alongside such basic tools as "md5sum". This article has been edited repeatedly by the author of the tool.


 * Withdrawn by nominator --- tqbf  22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted and the content demoted to a more general article on crypto filesystem forensics. --- tqbf 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I had never heard of it before today, but found 25k ghits, including http://www.linux.com/feature/118616 and http://www.netadmintools.com/art362.html. Seems to be a stock package in Ubuntu (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/md5deep) and even found some hits relating to Mac.  Utilities are kinda tricky, but this one seems to be written about in several areas.  It is in the public domain (not gpl) and appears to be commonly distributed. That makes me think it is notable enough.  Pharmboy (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Netadmintools is a blog, and per WP:SPS isn't a source that verifies notability. Candidly, I missed the Linux.com article; a couple more !votes that cite it or your argument, and I'll withdraw the nom --- though I still think the encyclopedia would be improved if we demoted this content and combined it with information about other tools like md5sum. --- tqbf  19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I am not normally a fan of using blogs as sources, when there is no doubt that the subject of the article *exists* and there is an overwhelming amount of blog activity on it, I think you can't ignore it. This is typical of tech issues, as blogs are a handy way to discuss how-to, etc.  Not saying they meet wp:rs, but overwhelming numbers of references have to count as something of notability, under these very limited circumstances.  And yes, there are other cites as well.  I didn't search it very hard after finding linux.com.  Pharmboy (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I, on the other hand, have not only heard of this program before, but actually use it. It's hardly non-notable, although the article may need a minor copy-edit. Alloranleon (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok, ok. Too quick on the trigger finger this time, and I apologize. That said, while I have you (I'll strike the nom in a few hours) --- would you oppose a merge+redirect with MD5sum into an article that also mentioned Tripwire? It seems weird to have all these tools split out. --- tqbf  20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I sounded confrontational; it wasn't my intent. :) As for the merge+redirect, I wouldn't oppose it at all. Cheers. Alloranleon (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2008 (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.