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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Techwave[edit]

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

Nothing at all for actual independent notability and substance especially given how this naturally only focuses with what the company itself would advertise about itself, especially since this has (1) literally not changed since the one advertising-only account, but coincidentally (perhaps) the other first user (second contributor) to involve themselves was also an advertising-only account, therefore, finally with searches showing nothing but natural PR advertising, it shows that's all this article has ever symbolized. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources to establish any sort of RS notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 21 November 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.