Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VPNBook

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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VPNBook

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

The VPNBook wikipedia article is a promotion of VPNBook violating NPOV also wikipedia is not a How To Manuel Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding sufficient in-depth coverage of this product to meet WP:CORP. There are quite a few references in the current article but most are dead links or links to the product's own website or are generic articles describing how to set up a VPN in various OS's. Neiltonks (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, throughout coverage from a review in the PC Magazine, as well as on the numerous other places. There is a problem of users adding junk to the article, so I suggest removing those bits. The article passes the threshold of notability, because of the number of reliable sources. 109.93.178.88 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PC Mag review is good, but I can´t say the same about other sources in the article. My search found nothing substantial so far. Pavlor (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Tech radar? 109.93.178.88 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Pavlor (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that this is biased article (POV) because it just describes the platform and shows both positive and negative critics, keep it per WP:GNG and WP:RS. I've removed the unnecessary content that other users have added to the article, added some review. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews by pcmag.com and techradar.com are for me good enough to demonstrate notability. Pavlor (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for now. Not too many, but still enough sources. 185.104.187.59 (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 28 June 2017 (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.