Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell & Ross


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bell & Ross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm dubious about notability here. All three references, as also the "Further reading" article, are from specialized magazines/websites about "the world of watches", and I think their capacity for establishing notability in the wider world is slim. The page at The Watch Quote is a dreadful puff piece about "one of the most beautiful adventures in watchmaking of the late 20th century". I looked at The Watch Quote's "Who are we?" page, which is as fulsome as their page on Bell & Ross (and as the other "brand sagas" that I sampled), and it contains the suggestive statement that The Watch Quote was created "to enter into genuine partnership with the great horology brands and professionals". It looks a lot like the "partnership" involves the brand professionals writing their own page. The offers to press officers (?) and journalists to "contact our Press Service" on this page, even though vaguely phrased, suggest the same thing. The Augustman site is billed as "The definitive men's network", and I can't see anything other than promotion on it; no tests, real reviews, or anything like that. Apart from such obvious infomercials, I suppose there may be mentions of Bell & Ross in reliable third-party sources that I can't find: Google gives so much advertising from sellers of the watches that it's difficult to find anything else. Anybody got anything? Bishonen &#124; talk 15:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the french article is sourced from Le Figaro and Challenges, which count as WP:RS. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable watchmaking company that follows the normal modern methods of promotion.--Racklever (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Bishonen has questioned the company's methods. And as far as I'm concerned, it's welcome to advertise. But Wikipedia should then ignore its advertising, just as it ignores most advertising (until the advertising itself is a matter of discussion in "reliable sources"). What disinterested sources do we have? What makes the company "notable"? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. I don't blame the company for promoting themselves. But their self-promotion does not confer notability, that's all I'm saying. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * delete a couple of fluffy blogs and one decent ref. Here for promotion; no thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Figaro page causes my browser to freeze, but I managed to extract its text via roundabout means. What with etc, it whelms me. (Is the writer perhaps dazzled by potential ad revenue?) Are there any other sources? -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete 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 Figaro reference mentioned above from the French language wikipedia page fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as it relies extensively (exclusively?) on an interview with Ross, one of the founders. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I have nothing but the utmost respect for Ms. Bish, but I must respectfully disagree with her arguments in this case. Bell & Ross meets WP:GNG per (a) the sources in the article, and others as well.  Just for instance, here they are discussed in a marketing textbook, their watches are reviewed, which, if these were books rather than watches, would be a clear indication of notability.  In fact, they are reviewed in the NYT.  In fact, they are reviewed multiple times in the NYT.  In short, this company is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The marketing textbook shows an ad for these watches and spends three sentences on the company; so yes, it mentions the company, but to say the company is "discussed" seems a stretch. The first "review" in the NYT looks to me like something out of The Onion; but my (irrelevant) opinion aside, it uncritically recycles self-flattery, for example And more of the same kind of twaddle. The second "review" says  -- no more than uncritical recycling of PR puffery. Where is the review? Is the watch accurate, reliable, durable, comfortable, legible? We're not told. (Or, imaginably, we are told; but my rather odd way of reading the NYT hides this from me. So please feel free to correct me.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like you don't appreciate the same kinds of qualities in high-end watches that their users and manufacturers do. You want accurate, reliable, durable, comfortable, legible?  Buy a Timex.  The point is that the NYT covers the watch, not that the NYT covers the watch in a manner that you, who aren't part of the stupidly expensive watch community, would approve of.  You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, but actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about.  This is why we rely on RS coverage rather than our own opinions.  If the NYT publishes it we assume they're publishing the relevant info.  They know more about it than we do. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On first reading, 192.160.216.52, I found your comment peculiarly annoying. When I asked myself why this was, I had to concede that it was because the comment was rather good. I can almost agree with it. However: You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, but actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about. The second half may well be true. If it is true, then why the "but" in the middle? (Why not You call it uncritical recycling of PR puffery, and so it is; despite this, actually it's providing the information that the people who care about those watches care about?) I can also concede that the NYT knows a lot more about its business than I do. I suggest that an important part of its business revenue is "luxury" advertising and that "luxury" advertorial content keeps advertisers happy. But whatever the reason why the NYT text is flatus, it's flatus, whereas this is an encyclopedia. &para; I looked for (somewhat) critical material about watches. It exists. "A Blog to Watch" publishes a lot of bland and uncritical "first looks"; but among these are actual reviews, for example this of an Orient watch. Strangely (to me), the matter of how well it keeps the time goes unmentioned (ditto in the other reviews that I looked at), but the reviewer exhibits a critical intelligence when evaluating its legibility, scratchproofness, etc. So sources can and do write up wristwatches without going gaga. Any examples for Bell & Ross? -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Horological and watch enthusiast publications have some quirks. Critical reviews (i.e. those that assess the quality of materials, fit and finish, movement accuracy, etc.) are reserved for watches in the (what is considered low end) $300-$1000 range. Reviews of the luxury watch segment (Rolex, Brietling, Omega, Bell&Ross, etc.) tend to sound gushy and swoony because the quality is expected to be (and usually is) superb when you're paying $3,000-$10,000 for a watch. Watch movements used in that caliber are typically Swiss or in-house and are certified by the COSC to chronometer standards, so accuracy (i.e. "does it keep time?") isn't an issue. All this makes high end watch reviews hard to distinguish from adverts, because they read like a Car & Driver review of a Lamborghini, i.e. slick photos and gushy prose. Anyway, I removed all the sources that were questionably fluffy and added some more serious sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The brand in question has an entire page on their website where they archive Independent press coverage of their watches going back 4 years for pete's sake (some may be advertorial but certainly not all of it): https://www.bellross.com/pressreview It is a luxury watch company and gets the sort of coverage luxury brands get. AlasdairEdits (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see this archive, AlasdairEdits. I see a set of illustrations of (cover?) pages. One can click on these. I did, a few times. Each time, I got something larger, but no more informative. If it's certain that not all the "independent press coverage" is advertorial, that's good; can you please then point us to a couple of exceptions, that is, to legible, intelligent, substantial independently-written text about the company and/or its products? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is routine, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. The arguments The brand in question has an entire page on their website where they archive Independent press coverage are not compelling; see Churnalism. A WP:PROMO page on a run-of-the-mill brand, which even luxury brands can be. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the well-known international watch brands among horologists, and plenty of good quality sources recently added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to Closing Admin 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 WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 17:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: LuckyLouie, you say you "added some more serious sources". Here's one of these: . Its opening sentence: Its closing sentence:  And what's between these two sentences is more of the same twaddle, as the writer bangs on about such seemingly no-nonsense (but actually vapid) things as  (Just what are these quality controls, and are they stricter than those used by Rolex, Seiko or whoever? We're not told) and saying that form follows function, while saying that form follows "tribute"  (in particular, a big deal is made out of the design notion of a circle within a square) or is "radar-inspired". A wristwatch is referred to as "wrist armour" in one context where it might actually be armour ... but also in a second context where it can't be. I imagine that the bullshit in this non-article is designed to lull the reader into an appreciative stupor and to encourage advertising; whether or not the content is mere churnalism, it's junk. Failing to see how an encyclopedia worth the name can be built on junk, I believe that this article should be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel all of the sources are trivial, paid shills, and just plain wrong, I guess we'll just have to disagree. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable per GNG, NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and Wikipedia is "NOT" a business yellow page directory nor free 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 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 |computer generated concept car for - advertising - and not an actual designed car. Otr500 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (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.