Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempo (retailer)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Tempo (retailer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable retail store, There's 3 cites about it going in to administration but other than that there's nothing, As it went in to administration in 2001 I'd imagine there may be a few sources offline however that's just a guess - There may be no sources offline whatsoever, Anyway fails GNG – Davey 2010 Talk 17:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best as my searches have found nothing particularly better at all and there's nothing else convincing there would be the depth of solidity. SwisterTwister   talk  21:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A former electrical goods retail operation, about which the given references document a familiar cycle of boosting expansion (suggestive article about seeking market funding) then administration when they ran out of cash struggling to compete (Daily Mail 2001 ). Nothing here suggests encyclopaedic notability for this company whose height seems to have been to be 5th largest in its local sector. For me, any identifiable coverage is routine and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.