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.
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 • hasspoken03:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.