Deletion of Bell & Ross

Comment: In the hopes that this comment will spark some effort on the part of Keep !voters to provide links to references ... the current situation is that it appears that despite the number of Keep !votes, there is still not a single references that meets the criteria for establishing notability (in particular, references that pass  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: does not meet  / . Sourcing is routine, passing mentions and / or . The arguments {{tq| The brand in question has an entire page on their website where they archive Independent press coverage }} are not compelling; see Churnalism. A  page on a run-of-the-mill brand, which even luxury brands can be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SPIP||WP:PROMO)

Comment: I have nothing but the utmost respect for Ms. Bish, but I must respectfully disagree with her arguments in this case.  Bell & Ross meets  per (a) the sources in the article, and others as well.  Just for instance, https://books.google.com/books?id=QjsaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA370&dq=Bell+%26+Ross+watches&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyx5fQiLDaAhWp5lQKHUiABokQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=Bell%20%26%20Ross%20watches&f=false here they are discussed in a marketing textbook, their watches https://books.google.com/books?id=b4XH1X9ldkUC&q=Bell+%26+Ross+watches&dq=Bell+%26+Ross+watches&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyx5fQiLDaAhWp5lQKHUiABokQ6AEIRjAG are reviewed, which, if these were books rather than watches, would be a clear indication of notability.  In fact, they are https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/style/watches-industrial-sapphire-crystal.html reviewed in the NYT.  In fact, they are reviewed multiple times https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/style/watches-baselworld-switzerland.html in the NYT.  In short, this company is notable. Special:Contributions/192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There are zero indications of notability - a run-of-the-mill luxury watch company with no intellectually independent references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references are intellectually independent. The http://www.lefigaro.fr/horlogerie/2015/01/19/30006-20150119ARTFIG00127-bell-amp-ross-une-constance-quasi-militaire.php Figaro reference mentioned above from the French language wikipedia page fails  and/or  as it relies extensively (exclusively?) on an interview with Ross, one of the founders. Topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Not otability|notable per |GNG, CORP|NCORP,  and OTYELLOW|Wikipedia is "NOT" a business yellow page directory nor free OTADVERTISING|advertising vehicle. The last two alone give amply reasoning why a run-of-the-mill luxury watch company (as stated above), should not be presented on Wikipedia. There are many multiple hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of companies and this is why we don't advertise for them as they are not encyclopedic. The company self-professes ''"as a young house"'' and there is no historical significance. This continued push to get companies listed on Wikipedia needs to be resisted according to current WP:policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines. Let them pay facebook in lieu of free full page Wikipedia sponsored advertising. Oh! It is free so why not --right? What about the "AeroGT concept car" that would seem to be pretty notable. It is a https://www.designboom.com/technology/bell-and-ross-aerogt-concept-03-18-2016/|''computer generated concept'' car for ----- advertising ----- and not an actual designed car
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NOTYELLOW||WP:NOTADVERTISING)