Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PureVPN

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not an award winning product, fails WP:NPRODUCT.

Reviewed by tech magazines which is their job afterall, not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Owned by Pakistani company which is using it for promotion on WP. Also to add, there was a tilt in previous discussion toward deletion too. Störm (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ... the Owned by Pakistani company as part of the nom. reason means I will not be supporting it. Article was substantially improved in the previous during the previous recent AfD and passes and difficult to see how that is being used for promotion given its current content.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article has issues (like at times being unclear if it is about the service or the company), AfD is not cleanup. Sources like this fleshed-out article in PC Magazine [1] are clear indications the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Reviewed by tech magazines which is their job afterall" is a very WP:POINT claim here. The fact the product was covered in such means it was notable enough to be noticed by those. Such as TechRadar [2], PC World [3], Business.com [4], Tom's Guide [5], IGN [6], PCMag [7], Mashable [8] (almost all of these bring cited in the article), and others I could possibly find if I looked more indepth. There is also coverage of it doing something for someone like on Forbes [9] and International Business Times [10]. Passes WP:GNG clearly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Satisfied by Jovanmilic97 (talk) facts. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Poladian, Charles (2018-09-06). "PureVPN review: Even limited Netflix access can't save this buggy VPN". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
  The article contains a list of criticisms about PureVPN in sections titled "Waiting for a connection", "Not so fast", "Netflix works (sort of)", and "privacy concerns".
2. Eddy, Max (2017-10-11). "Did PureVPN Cross a Line When It Disclosed User Information? When a VPN hands over user data on a creep, there's a freak out". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
  This article contains commentary about whether PureVPN crossed the line when it gave user data to the FBI. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage notes that "deep coverage" provides "commentary" of the company.
3. Nadel, Brian (2017-10-10). "PureVPN Review: Looks Good, Acts Bad". Tom's Guide. Purch Group. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
  The article contains a negative review of PureVPN, noting:
  Of the VPN services we've reviewed, PureVPN has the largest choice of connection locations, but it doesn't always deliver the data. Despite having widely distributed servers and excellent software, PureVPN delivered far from top-rank performance, and a recently disclosed criminal case makes us wonder how willing PureVPN is to protect customer privacy. Overall, we prefer Private Internet Access.
4. Paul, Ian (2017-08-25). "PureVPN review: It works well if you don't mind virtual server locations. PureVPN is a Hong Kong-based VPN that's recently been criticized for using virtual server locations". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PureVPN to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous AfD, the article was rewritten to remove the promotional material and to add critical coverage.
Cunard (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2019 (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.