Deletion of Dcfldd

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The programs gets 137 hits on Google scholar and about 360 hits on Google Books. The books http://books.google.com/books?id=hI3dqOyboegC&dq=%22Dcfldd%22+-wikipedia&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''The Best Damn Cybercrime and Digital Forensics Book Period'' has an in depth (several pages) discussion of the program, as does http://books.google.com/books?id=v7f4BEoAEAMC&dq=%22Dcfldd%22+-wikipedia&source=gbs_navlinks_s ''Defense Against the Black Arts''. Two more books http://books.google.com/books?id=O3EFpf9N6BgC&dq=%22Dcfldd%22+-wikipedia&source=gbs_navlinks_s Penetration Tester's Open Source Toolkit and http://books.google.com/books?id=J8h8VWUmDuYC&dq=%22Dcfldd%22+-wikipedia&source=gbs_navlinks_s 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 . Notability of the topic and no insurmountable problems with the article suggests keeping the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per Mark viking or merge per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PAGEDECIDE)