Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

PureVPN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't see how this ill-written bit of corporate spam meets our notability requirements for companies. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The text seems neutral and the references seem adequate. The fact that an article describes a commercial service does not make it spam. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate it when people nominate an article for deletion and then contest every keep reason, however reasonable – so I try to avoid doing it myself. I'm going to make an exception here:, would you care to address the rationale for deletion, that the page does not meet our notability requirements for companies? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The in-depth reviews by reliable sources such as MacUpdate and PCMAG establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTDIR.  There is nothing about this company or their article, beyond the basic concept of a VPN, that is at all either technically significant, commercially significant or WP:Notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain, the references establish notability. Mosaicberry (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It initially twiggesd my mind ... PureVPN ... I think I've heard of that before (but I could equally be mixed up with something else).  It seems to have large market share and has sustained but the choices for the reception section may not be neutral (and they were sloppy, no access date, not archived, url's swapped, one probably non neutral, not sure if the other (CNET) had actually reviewed from using the product rather than taking info from the website).  Other reviews techradar 2018, PCmag 2018 comparitech, The Best VPN (2019) (possibly not RS and possibly negative POV) perhaps paint a more balanced picture.  So it seems there are about 78 VPN products and we not would expect a wikipedia article for each.  That said PureVPN has WP:SUSTAINED, has about 2000 VPN servers (About 3rd or 4th  here),  and is headquartered in Asia so an article may well be warranted.  But it really needs to be beefed with a few more details and WP:NPOV probably needs to be tagged or to be sorted.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So if I'm the world's third or fourth busiest cat shampooer and pig polisher, that passes WP:N? Is this a bye to WP:NOTDIR for the biggest?  The biggest three? The biggest seven? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's a number of factors that count ... but in general bigger is better ... however smaller and innovative qualifies also. What I am sure of is a smaller VPN with a low value article is definitely to be let go.  To a degree linux distro's are kind of on the similar basis.  I'm currently more concerned about WP:NPOV if this gets kept which it may well do.  An enhanced article on this would probably be well worth keeping due to sustained history and various impplications.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Linux distros generally vary in some technical manner, which is at least "encyclopedic", even if not primarily WP:Notable by the necessarily rather arbitrary local rules. We do sometimes lose track of being an encyclopedia (it explains things that are complicated) and become too much of a directory of the "otherwise significant", despite WP:NOTDIR. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a VPN geek, but there do appear to be differences in Capabilities etc. And choice of VPN may be important for peoples in Asia / Russia where censorship and Privacy may be an issue.  As PureVPN is based from Hong Kong (People's Republic of China) that may have implications long term.  Does this article link into these things .... currently no.  Could it ... perhaps .... All a bit of a pig really. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Remove from the list of sources all of those that make money from that review and we do not have something that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Explore the links a little more -- they're affiliate links. That's part of why VPNs and other similar services get so many reviews -- it's not just consumer interest; it's kickbacks. Could they still be neutral reviews? Sure, but how can we tell? If there's an affiliate link in there, I don't think we can consider it independent. Eastmain above specifically referenced MacUpdate and PCMAG. MacUpdate is... far, far, far from acceptable. Far from an "in-depth review from a reliable source," It's basically a copy/pasted list of features from the company itself. PCMag has, bigger than everything else at the top, the logo and three affiliate links. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete It is an entirely generic business listing, not notable in any manner.  scope_creep Talk  22:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MILL. Thanks for the excellent expose of the poor quality sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Added after reading more votes: Agree 100% with Andy's comments about "cat shampooer and pig polisher"s, and Pavlor's comment "looks like a cheap ad" (even though the latter voted the other way). ☆ Bri (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  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".  This article contains commentary about whether PureVPN crossed the line when it gave user data to the FBI. Notability (organizations and companies) notes that "deep coverage" provides "commentary" of the company.  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." <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PureVPN to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Some of the articles such as https://www.pcworld.com/article/3219730/purevpn-vpn-review.html contain Google Ads including those from PureVPN to make money from users accessing their content. I do not think these links make the articles unreliable or non-independent because these ads are selected by Google without input from PureVPN. I do not consider affiliate links to make a source non-independent. The PCMag article linked by Eastmain (which is different from the one I am linking) notes: "PCMag reviews products independently, but we may earn affiliate commissions from buying links on this page. Terms of use." The PCMag.com Mission Statement notes: "Editorial reviews and conclusions are crafted without any personal, advertising, marketing or other business considerations." The negative coverage about PureVPN's slowness, usage of virtual locations, and user privacy concerns clearly demonstrates that it is being critically reviewed and commented on by publications without consideration to revenue from affiliate links. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources - Literally all of the sources above are to reviews (or, in one case, an "opinions" page linking to a review) based on affiliate links. Of course all of the publications talk about being independent. For the sake of argument, let's even give them the benefit of the doubt and say that, against odds, they take a perfectly neutral approach to the review. That doesn't change the fact that the opportunity to build in affiliate links provides motivation for the very initiation of such a review. In other words, while their independence may lead them to review it honestly, that they're reviewing it at all (the most important thing for notability) is tainted by the great likelihood of ulterior motives. It's why VPNs have such an easy time getting so many reviews. Frankly, Cunard, I don't know why you're using your considerable source-finding talents to save an article about something where the most interesting thing we can say about it is "it's subpar." Reaffirming this as a definite delete. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am supporting retention because PureVPN has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and I do not think affiliate links make the sources non-independent or unusable for notability given that they have provided plenty of negative coverage about the subject. Software review publications like PC Magazine and PC World also have print editions that do not have affiliate links. Software review sites in general have affiliate links because that helps them generate revenue. If they were all excluded, then nearly all reputable review sites would be unusable for establishing notability. Why am I supporting retention? I believe there is value to the readers in providing an article that summarizes sources explaining how PureVPN is subpar. Cunard (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But no version of this article, either now or when it was rather longer at the start of April, has "explained how PureVPN is subpar". Instead it has all been anodyne corporate woffle. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is capable of improvement, it may have been subject to sabotage by a COI editor, when I used a Wikipedia Geolocate from ANI on an IP address that was the VPN offering that caame up as an advertisement (which actually to me immediately means I will always avoid it!). Wish I had more time to tackle it.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This article reads like an advertisement, and any references go to reviews, not sources that indicate it is a particularly notable VPN. Having used PureVPN in the past, I can't say I found it particularly different than other VPNs, so I don't think this article has much potential to begin referencing something notable unless something changes about PureVPN. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I will review these sources later, but judging by headlines posted by Cunard, these could support notability quite well. Unlike editors above, I find good reviews as an excellent source for software/hardware related Wikipedia articles. However, these sources should be really used in the article, it looks like a cheap ad otherwise (boasting how this VPN is good, when sources have other POV...). Pavlor (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mashable, Tom's Guide, PC Magazine, PC World are good sources showing notability of this product/service. Sources like The Inquirer are pure garbage (written by the company itself...) and should have no place in the article (at least not without proper attribution). If anybody improves (balances) the article by writing anew the entire reception section, I will gladly "vote" keep. However, I will not touch an article created and refbombed as a vehicle for promotion - too new and fresh for my taste (I may change my mind and TNT it myself, if the article is kept). Pavlor (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Silly second vote deleted ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Heads up: you've already !voted above. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

18:41, 5 April 2019 Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) restored page PureVPN (92 revisions) (restore earlier history) (thank) 09:00, 21 December 2018 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page PureVPN (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW)) (thank) 13:07, 8 February 2017 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page PureVPN (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11) (thank)
 * Comment Call me stupid ... I had not looked carefully at this article ... but the history simply doesn't look consistent. It looks as though the page was recreated on 5 April 2019 and perhaps other history added.  There's no sign of the talk page which was deleted in November 2018.  I might perform a rescue (and I've really tried to stay away from this one) but I want a clear picture of what has happened.  Otherwise this might be off to DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)  OK I found a history....
 * @ ... Can you give an expanded explanation of how this came here and why the talk page was not restored. I apologise I am not on a device I can collate a lot of stuff in one go?  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)  Also as far as I can tell  was not informed of the AfD ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Justlettersandnumbers for rematerializing the talk page. I can now put a NPOV on the article which I should have done weeks ago .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All of that is correct, . It was created, tagged and deleted on 8 February 2017, created again within an hour or so by an obvious UPE editor, deleted as G11 on 21 December 2018, re-created on 5 April 2019. I undeleted the previous history to make it visible; I didn't undelete the previous history of the talk-page as there wasn't one, but have now done so – I'm afraid it adds nothing much to this discussion. The whole history of the article is visible to all, there are no deleted edits. If you have other questions, fire away! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point – the notification went to Mehmood Hanif. Now remedied. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I just didn't get all this from your nomination and this has influenced my discussions and I am now feeling a right plonker.  At this point I want a relist for due to the irregularities.  If closer wishes a keep thats fair enough and if a delete I want a userfication so its me who reworks this back into mainspace ... because it doubtless will be re-appearing one way or another and I'd prefer to neutralize the article (my workload is stacking ...) with its history or it will reappear as PureVPN (software) or something.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - FYI it seems like there's some disagreement about the extent to which kickbacks via affiliate links should affect our evaluation of the reliability of a source. As such, I've opened a thread at RSN here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I've not linked in the other direction just to err on the side of caution since I've !voted here. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is spreadsheet doing the rounds at the moment which contains roughly the details of 300-500 odd VPN providers and reflects almost exactly what the trade magazines are reporting. Reams and reams of VPN's providers have appeared in the last 10 years and they are the most part, entirely generic. The sources offered by Cunard are generic. They are mix non-RS review's and run of the mill trade affiliate news failing WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.  scope_creep Talk  00:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit I´m a little bit puzzled here. Which of the sources Cunard posted are non-RS reviews and which are run of the mill trade affiliate news? I thought webpages in question have editorial oversight, so may qualify as a RS. Pavlor (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi } References 1,2 and 4 are reviews. There are always for the most part done by one person. Occasionally, e.g if it a camera, the body will be reviewed by a one person and specialist outfit with the lens, e.g the dxo mark outfit. This is not like that. So for almost all reviews and that is majority are done by one person, which means they are subjective and are non-RS. The last reference originally appeared in The Register, a British outfit. So it is affiliate news. VPN companies are for the most part generic. You can set one up yourself fairly easily and there is not much difference between them. every one of them is using the same four protocols. A large number of them are good, a large number of them are bad. Many hundreds don't keep logs, many hundreds do. The only differentiator is generally how good their support and using real server locations. So there is not much to differentiate them. We should keep the biggest and the best, but for the most part this one is neither.  c Talk  07:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @ from memory of a reference I understand this to be one of the bigger and most sustained ones ... however I would be concerned about best given from appear to be hands on reviews, which is why I've POV'd it. Who would you regard as the bigger ones. There's also appears to be some geographically local popular niche ones, Gom VPN for example.  I'd really like this discused at project level I think rather than a drip feed.08:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your point about reviews is a nonsense. For us, most important is, if the page in question has regular staff, how rigorous is its editorial policy and how perceived is by other sources we consider reliable. We certainly should not care, if subject of the article is the biggest and the best or not, only its coverage in reliable sources matters. We must ask: Are the sources mentioned by Cunard reliable? The answer is yes. Is the coverage broad enough to establish notability of the article subject? This is the very point we should discuss, not some artificial "policy" about VPNs. Pavlor (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Due to concerns expressed with regards to retention for articles of this class of product I raised a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Thankyou.
 * Delete. Most of the references are to industry-specific publications, so fail WP:AUD.  The article itself if just a listing of trivia factoids.  For example, "Manual setup installation guides are available on its official Support platform".  If somebody felt the need to mention that in an encyclopedia article, that's an indication of just how little there is to say.  Most of the rest of the article is generic descriptions common to all VPNs.  There's a VPN that provides end-to-end encryption?  Really?  -- RoySmith (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.