Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu's Link Sleuth

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. The article defaults to "keep." Joyous 00:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Xenu's Link Sleuth
This seems like one guy promoting his obscure freeware program. RSpeer 06:52, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. A useful program. Mikkalai 08:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  An interesting article and useful stub.  GRider\talk 18:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the people voting Keep have indicated if they've ever heard of this product before or if it is notable.  The article does not establish notability.  RickK 23:31, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is useful, e.g., for wikipedia maintenance of broken links. If you suggest me another tool that does the same, I may reconsider the vote. Notability is but one of criteria. Anyway, since youare so picky, I did some research. It exists since 1997, and quite a few people are reportedly used it. Broken links are real plague of HTML; I'd say cancer, since there is no uneversal cure yet. So I conclude: the tool is notable. And lastly, google gives 28,700 hits.  So I guess none of the people voting to delete researched its notability from other sources. Bad stub does not establish non-notability.  Mikkalai 23:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If you had said in your vote that you knew the program and had either used it or knew personally that it was notable, then I wouldn't have needed to post what I did. But since you declined to do so, all I can assume is that you are making a generic "notable" vote because that's the way radical inclusionists tend to vote.  RickK 00:45, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * And how then do radical deletionists tend to vote? Please curb your personal attacks, they're unnecessary and generate more heat than light.  GRider\talk 00:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Relax, GR. I am not insulted. And by the way, IMO I am a deletionist, if someone could take the pain to review my votes. :-) Mikkalai 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 00:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I was all set to vote delete, but Google is giving 15,000 hits for the phrase "Xenu's Link Sleuth", which I can't see applying to much else other than this piece of software, so, Keep. &mdash;Stormie 01:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 05:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - not a vanity (I created it as a separate item from Xenu) and I've used it myself since 1997. (It's very nice for what it does.) - David Gerard 22:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I disagree with the people who say this is notable - I don't think it is. &rarr;Raul654 19:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, does it make sense to create a Broken link article? Mikkalai 21:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not at all an "obscure" program, unless "obscure" covers programs that don't cost money and come in reassuringly oversized shrinkwrapped boxes. It's a superb program that does its job, runs extremely fast, and produces a sitemap as an incidental benefit. (The only pity is that Tilman will neither bring out a version for other OSes nor release the source code.) Keep. -- Hoary 08:22, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samaritan 06:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.