Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell & Ross (3rd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Improve with reliable secondary sources, please. Missvain (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Bell & Ross
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertisement masquerading as article on company that has already been found not to satisfy corporate notability. See Articles for deletion/Bell & Ross. I have not read the deleted advertisement, but the text of the article cannot have been expanded. The article has evidently been reference-bombed with questionable sources to address comments in the AFD about sourcing.

If this were a draft in AFC, I would decline it as being written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself, and saying nothing about what others have said about the company. It was also submitted as a draft in AFC (possibly in order to prevent draftification), and I did decline it.

Naïve Google search finds many hits on the watches, but they are all primary or advertising, and the text of the article doesn't even refer to secondary coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: this article has been expanded with reliable sources including NYT, Esquire, and Robb Report. The presence of this article in so many other language wikis also hints at its worldwide notability. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  02:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Not an unreasonable stance, from the creating editor. ;) BTW, the "presence of this article in so many other language wikis" means little, IMO, especially when most of those articles have no sources other than the company's website. What it "hints at" is, perhaps the company has a multilingual marketing team. Or they've discovered Google Translate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete 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 WP:GNG / WP:CORP. (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.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. (Heroeswithmetaphors)   talk  17:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of sources. The arguments for deletion would apply to most commercial companies that advertise.--Racklever (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Supplier to the Air Force and space missions would seem notable, could use some original French language sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Passes WP:NCORP with sufficient WP:ORGIND 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 the company's collection of third party reviews, there is analysis of the brand itself, such as The Watch, Thoroughly Revised by Stone and Pulvirent. Abrams 2018. I would also point to many articles in Hodinkee, which is sort of the horological equivalent of Car & Driver. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2020 (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.