Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StrongVPN

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 merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries. Clear consensus for the page not to exist (delete + merge), so per ATD, closing as merge & redirect. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StrongVPN edit

[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)

advertising or promotion Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 15:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:GNG. It has significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than basic program spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't believe that it's quite spam, I cannot find any independent sourcing outside of reviews.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of not being notable and border line spam/promotional. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries: Not notable enough to warrant its own article. It's best to briefly discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since I already casted my vote and others are disagreeing. I don't see any problems with reviews. They provide significant, independent reliable coverage of the subject. They are published by TechRadar (who calls it "a major VPN brand"), ZDNet, Tom's Hardware and PCWorld who all meet the WP:RS requirements. Apart from the reviews, the subject is mentioned in works published by academic publishers like Springer Publishing and Association for Computing Machinery and the acquisition has been mentioned in the news. Based on these sources, the subject can have a standalone article per WP:GNG, and can also be extended. The article is written with WP:NPOV in mind, I don't think it is promotional or spam at all. Also, the article has been extended since being nominated. Above of that, the nominator has been accused here of improper nominations and not following WP:BEFORE. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, but beside the point. The nominator is not being discussed here, the article is. The article subject actually fails GNG, as 'mentions' don't have weight in SIGCOV. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No defining features that make it unique, or notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is checked by validating sources against WP:GNG, which is fine in this case. Also, please read WP:IGNORINGATD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as WP:ATD. With what's currently in the article a brief section on the parent companies article seems like a good solution. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just another, non-notable program; or Merge a (referenced) line to J2 Global#Brands and subsidiaries as suggested above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putting my reply here so it is clear it was posted after the relisting. @GenQuest: I was only discussing the nominator after stating my relevant argument. And the article does not fail WP:GNG, you are reading my comment the wrong way. It is only 'just' mentioned in the academic source by ACM. In the Springer article, there is a paragraph about their logging policy. The reviews I mentioned earlier definitely provide SIGCOV (and all the other aspects required for the GNG). Please evaluate them yourself before voting delete. I am still voting keep. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple sources are cited. NemesisAT (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2021 (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.