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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure digital forensic imaging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The term is a pure neologism which is currently only used for one device for cervical examination. True, there is no overt advertising in the article but "Ward Allen is a Forensic Imaging Consultant for SDFI-TeleMedicine". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The article in question is a process that applies to people, organizations and federal institutions that handle digital forensic images (including digitally displayed documents such as a scanned paper or any displayed information - See the Federal Rules of Evidence on page 25). Imaging devices such as SLR Digital Cameras, CCD’s, CMOS’s, CAT SCAN’s, MRI’s, EEG’s, X-RAY’s and ULTRASOUNDS all produce digital images that have been used as court evidence. Their primary intent may not have been for “forensics” but when the digital data is requested or demanded by the court system, those digital images automatically become digital forensic evidence.

In most cases, medical/legal digital images are held in protected and encrypted environments (Due to various federal laws). With the advent of high speed internet connections, the encrypted forensic evidence is not being printed or burned to a CD as it is more effective and secure to transmit the files through secure digital “TeleMedicine” or “TeleHealth” conduits.

• Delete It is possible that there can be a neutral article on the subject, but the presence of the section on one specific application, and the failure to find any RS at all using the term, makes the promotional nature clear. Better for someone else to start over under a proper title. DGG (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure digital forensic imaging simply describes a process that is becoming more and more popular as health systems convert from traditional documentation to paperless methods. If you take a digital picture and it is used for evidence it is deemed "forensic" and all forensic evidence must have limited access (be "secure") to adhere to federal law. The use of digital cameras in forensics is emerging but the concept, process and laws are well established.

I make no attempt to hide the fact that I work in the industry however this is a process greater than anything I am involved in. A wiki simply provides an educational resource for those who are not familiar with it and summarizes it for those who are.

NOTES:

This is one of the pre-existing external documents named. It was released by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2004. If is useful in its entirety but pages 11 and 15 should paint the picture. U.S. Department of Justice - Forensic Examination of Digital Evidence: A guide for Law Enforcement

This is also a pre-existing external document from the FBI (Working with SWGDE) describing the usage of digital evidence. Again, it contributes in entirety but the IOCE International Principles at the end might be most helpful. FBI - Digital Evidence: Standards and Principles

This is a new link, somewhat general but also describing the emerging usage of digital data. I would be happy to link it if you believe it would help. Digital Imaging

---

The various internal links define the standard parts of the process (Including further requirements leading to the process with SWGIT and SWGDE). The external links tie them together from a legal standpoint. Please understand that this is my first wiki and I would appreciate any advice as to the type of references that could be provided to make this acceptable.

I am doing my best to meet your neologism requirements (To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.) however if there is an identifiable gap please let me know. As for the orphaning, am I correct in thinking you want me to go edit appropriate articles with a link to this one (as a way of encouraging cross development?)? I have added the category marker using an existing category at least for now...that is something I simply missed before.

Thank you. (P.S. I put this explanation in a couple of places as I am not 100% clear where it will be seen, I apologize for redundancy)

Ward.Allen (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of the documents cited as references actually use the term "secure digital forensic imaging", so far as I can tell. This does not necessarily mean that the concept is not notable, but it does lead me to wonder whether it is using the correct title, and whether it might just need a move, and perhaps some editing to become more general. Inline citations would definitely help, too. Anaxial (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the absence of anyone more knowledgeable in the subject area than I offering to fix this, it appears that deletion is the best option. Anaxial (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is allen ward's first article and it is very discouraging to new users to have their first article deleted. This article needs several references...perhaps an ((expert)) template would suffice rather than an afd? And while there may be a WP:COI, he has not advertised in the article.Smallman12q (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1': Here are some possible references from a simple google search(which yield 112k results)...

• http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Secure+Digital+Forensic+Imaging
• http://www.forensic.to/links/pages/Forensic_Sciences/Field_of_expertise/Photography/
• http://www.sdfi.com/
• www.sdfi.com/downloads/Introduction_to_SDFI-TeleMedicine_09-15-2007.pdf
• www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/DFRWSfinal.pdf
• www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199408.pdf

Smallman12q (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and put on probation list for one month for the editor (and others) to improve it. Alternatively, userfy it, but with the likely outcome that only the editor will work on it. As it stands, there is no overt advertising (and therefore little acute harm done) but the article is transgressing WP:ADVERT, which is unsustainable in the long run. The article creator says "this is a process greater than anything I am involved in." I would take this at face value, and ask him to write an article on this greater process, with a broader title, and as a sub-issue it could mention the proprietary system here. The article creator is evidently a sawy expert content contributor, his comments above demonstrate willingness to conform to WP policies, he shows a healthy measure of good faith - but it is simply his first article. We should encourage people like him to contribute, outright deletion is not the right thing to do here. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do want to make whatever changes necessary to make this work and am watching this feedback trying to get a sense of where things have gone wrong and how to make them right. I would very much appreciate time to sort through this and consult with others (and learn how things work around here).

This is a term that deserves a presence as it is what most medical professionals using digital photography HAVE to do no matter what products they are using. The method of photography, security and tele-medicine can vary greatly (using different products/equipment etc) while the process remains the same (as per requirements defined on a federal level). The name itself pre-dates any company links given it is a self explanitory term (it is forensic imaging, done digitally and securely). The "telemedicine" portion is inclusive of the process (but not in the title of the wiki process because that WOULD be a conflict with a specific company name) because, of course, digital forensic evidence must be moved around amongst legal and medical professionals while adhering to federal law. This process can be applied to various solutions. If you take your personal digital camera, take a picture of someone's wound, they go to court and use the picture as evidence and it is proven legally to have adhered to the appropriate federal laws then the process is intact......... although that simple of an example does not sufficiently describe the process as the specific legal requirements play a large role (and it doesn't account for the secure transfer of information [telemedicine]).

I of course am more than happy to explore the concept of making this a sub-issue of a larger concept however, this really is the general process (in my head anyway, I am open to any suggestions), if I were to make a proprietary sub-issue, it would look very different. One thought is, if I were to refer to the equipment as no more than a "digital imaging device" (instead of a digital camera) and remove references to the colposcope, that would make it supremely general.....then it could be referring to any digital equipment (like an X-Ray, Ultrasound or even a colposcope with a camera or video recorder attached). The only problem there is making things THAT general steals away from the definition because most digital imaging devices are not used for forensic exams and while a rare perceived exception is a colposcope, that is not really correct because it is looking though the archaic lens system referred to in the original article (it is not a pure digital device, it is a digital device dependant on a non-digital one).

Please let me know if I am on the right track or if anyone has further thoughts. Thank you.

Ward.Allen (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made a number of changes to simplify the descriptions and ensure generic content. Ward.Allen (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (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.