Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullvad

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 07:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mullvad[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)

Same reason as with AirVPN (AfD disc.) and AzireVPN (AfD disc.): the service doesn't meet the criteria in WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG. While VPN services are notable as a phenomenon, a lot of the small providers simply haven't been covered enough to be notable by themselves. Redirecting Mullvad to Comparison of VPN services might be an idea, though, since I still believe Mullvad is relevant in the context of a comparison of VPN services, but I guess that may be a controversial move. --Stempelquist (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single review in PCWorld doesn't qualify it for WP:CORP notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are other WP:RS reviews beside PCworld. thebestvpn does hands on test reviews. Unusually for a 14 eyes jurisdiction no information is required to register and using Bitcoin to pay you should be relatively anonymous. A keep is possible given Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Retention of VPN Products and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN. Its important people check widely for sources not just what is in the article. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: thebestvpn.com and similar sites are affiliate marketing blogs -- I wouldn't count those as reliable sources, since their only purpose is to earn money by redirecting potential customers to VPN services. In short, their "reviews" are commercials in disguise. --Stempelquist (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I'm not mistaken I'd note the AfD nom. is also the article creator ... a little unusual. Actually I added the notability tag so quite unusual. I've increased the article content a little to bring it beyond stub but I've no made a good job of it ... certainly not up to the PureVPN article standard. But it is beginning to bring out some of the aspects that mkae it stand out from some other VPN providers and it has WP:SUSTAINED over 10 or so years.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 00:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: At a glance, I'm seeing three articles from PC World (all by the same author), an article from Tom's Guide, and an article from TechRadar that are independent of Mullvad, which puts me on the fence about WP:GNG. I'm aware Tom's Guide and TechRadar are both owned by Future plc, but they seem to be editorially independent of each other. The biggest question I'm confronted with, however, is: "What does this article do that Comparison of virtual private network services doesn't or can't?" Because outside of a small bit of history, I'm seeing very little. Disclaimer: I made an edit to the article about a year ago, and I'm enthusiastic about privacy software, but I'm in no way affiliated with Mullvad. Note: If kept, the article should be improved, for example by removing the blatant advertisement from the lead section. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the lede and what is present is supported by the body and also added more content and references. With Techradar and PCworld reviews plus use of The One Privacy Site and TheBestVPN comparison sites we meet WP:GNG and these are all referenced on the article. I observe the points of given on [1] with a lot of comparison sites but this article is using the ones mentioned performing real tests. The Comparison of virtual private network services article is good but tables suffer on mobile devices (at least mine) and can be hard to keep updated (I'd not that article was also created by Stempelquist). There may be issues about what VPN's are eligible for inclusion the table ... it looks as if it was VPN's with article's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AzireVPN and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirVPN were deleted for example meaning those should be removed from that article. From the discussion at Retention of VPN Products this is above the keep threshold.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC) I'd also note this pentest report from Cure53 I've just happened across.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"From the discussion at Retention of VPN Products this is above the keep threshold." Except 1) That was a discussion between four random people on WikiProject Computing, 2) one of those people – the person who started it and proposed the criteria – is you, and 3) the other three editors disagreed with your point, for example saying your criteria are "a somewhat bad idea" and "not going to mesh with existing notability criteria". I would hardly call TheBestVPN a reliable source, as while they're not currently partnered with Mullvad specifically, they make their money by partnering with a number of VPN providers using affiliate links, and That One Privacy Site (the source I added), while I would call it "reliable" for personal use, is questionably reliable for Wikipedia, insofar as it's a personal site. Mullvad, Azire, and Air still belong on the comparison, as they're still large VPN providers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they warrant their own separate articles. That the tables on the comparison article don't work well on mobile for you specifically (they work just fine for me) likewise doesn't mean a VPN provider warrants its own article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I beleive cited coverage [2], [3], [4], [5] is sufficient, in sum, to meet WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To much substance for too little notability. Would stretch further without the website plug. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:50, 7 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.