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. No consensus after minimal participation and two relistings. No prejudice against speedy renomination (WP:NPASR). MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freewire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not necessarily factual and cannot find any sources after 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUSConservative (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 June 2016‎

Comment. Nominator TheUSConservative had blanked the AfD after the nomination. I have reverted the blanking and opening for discussion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re PROD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: This article was originally PRODed on the grounds that it was hopelessly out of date. The PROD went the full seven days without challenge and the article became deletable. The PRODer also created this AfD at about the same time (probably due to inexperience as it is a fairly recent account). It is my belief that TheUSConservative blanked this AfD having realised it was superfluoous. The AfD was reinstated and the PROD deleted by someone else on the grounds that an AfD is in place. This article should be deleted because the PROD ran its course unchallenged. --Elektrik Fanne 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] Admins do not delete PRODs just because they sat for 7 days and no one objected. Admins only delete where there is a valid reason to delete an article. In this case the PROD reason was that the article hadn't been updated in 2 years, that is a reason to edit the article not delete it. The removal of the PROD was correct. -- GB fan 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] @GB fan:That was not the reason given for the deletion of the PROD. However valid your reasoning is, the given reason for deleting the PROD was not valid (that an AfD had been inadvertently created by an inexperienced editor). --Elektrik Fanne 10:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] Actually there is no invalid reason to remove a prod. A prod can be removed for any reason or no reason at all. -- GB fan 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re PROD

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: This article was originally PRODed on the grounds that it was hopelessly out of date. The PROD went the full seven days without challenge and the article became deletable. The PRODer also created this AfD at about the same time (probably due to inexperience as it is a fairly recent account). It is my belief that TheUSConservative blanked this AfD having realised it was superfluoous. The AfD was reinstated and the PROD deleted by someone else on the grounds that an AfD is in place.

This article should be deleted because the PROD ran its course unchallenged. --Elektrik Fanne 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not delete PRODs just because they sat for 7 days and no one objected. Admins only delete where there is a valid reason to delete an article. In this case the PROD reason was that the article hadn't been updated in 2 years, that is a reason to edit the article not delete it. The removal of the PROD was correct. -- GB fan 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan:That was not the reason given for the deletion of the PROD. However valid your reasoning is, the given reason for deleting the PROD was not valid (that an AfD had been inadvertently created by an inexperienced editor). --Elektrik Fanne 10:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no invalid reason to remove a prod. A prod can be removed for any reason or no reason at all. -- GB fan 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that the request for deletion via WP:PROD has been declined. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the content I'm seeing on Google News has nothing to do with the UK media company described in the article, but rather with a US-based startup. It seems to be that there are multiple different companies, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not appear to suggest that the one the article currently discusses should be the first thing a reader sees. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems at best because my searches have found nothing particularly better, there's also then nothing else convincing for the noticeably needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notably at one point, there's tons of articles from reliable sources from the 2000's about the IPTV service. Just because it hasn't made news lately doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Needs updating, sure, but deletion seems like an overreach. Maybe even needs to become a disambiguation page because of the other US-based Freewire company. But deletion? No. LAroboGuy (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ cannot find anything on if it's even a company anymore. We cannot factually update the article and it's notability now is in question and it's factuality could be compromised. TheUSConservative (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this "delete" !vote; as nominator your "delete" !vote is already counted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2016 (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.