Deletion of Bell & Ross (3rd nomination)

Comment: The sources are pure churnalism, and in most cases pretty blatantly so. The only proper RS one is the NYT article, but it's about sapphire crystal, not about this company, and in any case not enough on its own to satisfy  / . (I was first going to say keep and improve by cutting out all the promo blurb and fluff like 'collaborated with Renault' etc., but I'm not sure there'd be much left. And even then it wouldn't be any more notable than it is now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: I originally created this article when I wanted to know more about the brand and ''of course '' came to Wikipedia — and found no article! If I want to know more about a topic and Wikipedia doesn't have the article, that's a big |Wikifail in my opinion. We're supposed to be creating the best encyclopedia in the world here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:FAIL)

Comment: Passes  with sufficient  sources. I can understand mistakenly assuming that a watch brand that's only 30 years old must be a fly-by-night, especially when compared to others that have been around for 100-200 years, however Bell & Ross is actually a fairly notable Swiss brand within the industry. Is it notable as defined by Wikipedia? Yes. Apart from https://www.bellross.com/pressreview the company's collection of third party reviews, there is analysis of the brand itself, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=G9ZQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT179&dq=bell+%26+ross&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ3P3qqKjtAhWxRDABHd0xAVEQ6AEwAHoECAYQAg ''The Watch, Thoroughly Revised by Stone and Pulvirent. Abrams 2018''. I would also point to https://www.hodinkee.com/brands/bell---ross many articles in Hodinkee, which is sort of the horological equivalent of Car & Driver
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND)