Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcadia Watches


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Arcadia Watches

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Appears to be a historic watchmaker brand relaunched. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Current sourcing tends to support the nomination.  Someone buying up a 40-year-dormant brand name is not really a continuation of the historical company, of which I can find no sourcing though I presume it existed.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources here are really poor, and don't support independent verification of general notability. Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article aren't the only factor. If you search google books you will find sources on Arcadia Watches there. As far as the relaunched brand not being notable, it is more of a footnote to the historic watchmaker. But certainly we can't exclude the fact that someone is bringing the watch brand back. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2013 (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.