Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell & Ross
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
— [[User talk:192.160.216.52|talk]]), 16:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)