Deletion of PureVPN (2nd nomination)

Comment: Reviewed by tech magazines which is their job afterall" is a very  claim here. The fact the product was covered in such means it was notable enough to be noticed by those. Such as TechRadar https://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/software/utilities/purevpn-1325640/review, PC World https://www.pcworld.com/article/3219730/purevpn-vpn-review.html, Business.com https://www.business.com/reviews/purevpn/, Tom's Guide https://www.tomsguide.com/us/purevpn,review-4497.html, IGN https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/18/purevpn-review, PCMag https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/356727/did-purevpn-cross-the-line, Mashable https://mashable.com/review/pure-review-vpn/ (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 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeescobedo/2017/09/18/how-purevpn-boosted-its-yoy-traffic-by-289-via-user-generated-content/#1bfd2e2b7a91 and International Business Times https://www.ibtimes.com/purevpn-provided-users-data-fbi-stalking-case-2599677. Passes  clearly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/356727/did-purevpn-cross-the-line are clear indications the topic meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:GNG||WP:NSOFTWARE)