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 Redirect and protect The majority of the non conflicted positions are that this topic is not sufficiently independent for its own article therefore closing as "redirect". As there has been a lot of disruption around this topic will be fulling protecting this article. Work to clean up the other articles created by what appears to be a large family of socks still required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Eddy Vodka[edit]

Deep Eddy Vodka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. The references are egregiously low-quality, generally press releases about product releases or about non-notable awards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have cleaned up the page to include good sources. It is one of the fastest growing spirits brands in the world according to most alcohol related websites, so I think notability is not in doubt. Nidhi.b.dalal (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nidhi.b.dalal (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep - I was checking the names in the "List of vodkas" page and most of the vodkas are less notable but still have reviewed pages. While Deep Eddy doesn't have a HuffPost or CNN covering it, very rarely do local spirit brands get that sort of coverage (unless you are Johnny Walker). most spirits focused coverages exist. Take Laphroaig or Grey Goose , two major spirit brands - they have badly written pages but rightly reviewed. Compared to that, this page is an improvement. If you're in Texas, everyone knows this brand. I agree with the author - notability is fairly certain. I do think better sources still exist.Caninelover (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Caninelover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Have added thespiritsbusiness as a source, as well as other helpful references. Would like to improve the articles more but I think passes WP:GNG all major spirits publications have covered it. Godzilladude123 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Caninelover. This article subject passes WP:GNG. Donald1659 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the first 3 !voters are blatant socks. CU are on it. SmartSE (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Pick out relevant information, and merge that into Heaven_Hill (and optionally set up a redirect to Heaven_Hill)
This is the English Wikipedia (of the world), not to be confused with the Texas Drinks Guide Wikipedia.
(And, to be blunt: The article holds 30 references, yet you certainly do not need to spend hours, meticulously reading everything in every one of them, before becoming highly suspicious of somebody trying to blow a lot of smoke, hoping that quantity of references will help sneak the article to dodge the notability requirement.)
--DexterPointy (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My own searching failed to find anything more interesting than the fact that you can buy this at Walmart. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGIND and WP: AUD is met here. Enough industry specific sources -- CBcleaner (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any Keep-"votes", which are firmly & convincingly arguing their case.

So far, I'm only seeing two kind of "arguments" being swung:

Arg.Type.1.: The subject/article passes WP:Something, being stated without any attempt of providing evidence as to why it passes WP:Something.

Problem: Without presenting any evidence (or any proper evidence, i.e. evidence, which is argued & actual evidence of passing), then you might as well say "It passes notability, because it's notable!" (or "It passes notability, because it's notable, and here's a picture of my cat, which clearly proves notability!").

Arg.Type.2.: The subject/article passes notability by having many mentions/coverage from multiple alleged quality/reliable sources.

Problem: I'm betting I can find an even greater number of sources of far better quality and reliability, when it comes to the weather forecast for Texas 21.Feb.2018.

If notability and mentions/coverage are interchangeable (synonyms), then "Texas Wheather on 20. February 2018" is far from the only article, of higher importance, needed to be created on Wikipedia.

--DexterPointy (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my "Strong Keep" vote better, I have edited the page to add better references and removed press releases. Houston Chronicle, Kentucky.com, Wall Street Journal, Houston Press should help establish WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG. The articles in these publications didn't have Deep Eddy as mere mentions, they specifically focused on the brand. BevNet, Bar Magazine, BarBiz Mag references would cater to WP:AUD since these are industry specific. CBcleaner (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you here please list just 3 references (URLs), which you regard as the most important ones, for serving as clear evidence of notability? DexterPointy (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, these are the four most relevant ones:

1. Wall Street Journal covering the acquisition. Heaven Hills or other spirits major players seem to keep buying brands. Only the major ones make it to WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/heaven-hill-brands-buys-deep-eddy-vodka-1440107007

2. Spirit business has the imp sector links here. The brand hitting one million case sales. I did a little bit of digging here - in the spirits industry, one million is usually an important landmark. It is when (within the industry), your brand comes in the big league. With deep eddy, the "focus" has also been on their growth. Second link is an award.

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/03/deep-eddy-vodka-hits-1m-case-sales/

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/06/vodka-brand-champion-2017/

3. The third one I think highlights their importance locally to Texas or Austin in particular. If one Google's "Deep Eddy Buda distillery", it got significant coverage https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2016/09/21/deep-eddy-vodkato-leave-dripping-springs-lured-by.html

Owing to the above, I feel WP:GNG and WP:AUD is met.

-- CBcleaner (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect : I now no longer hold doubts, that "Deep Eddy Vodka" is probably a notable part of "Heaven Hill", and thus:

- "Deep Eddy Vodka" should be merged into Heaven_Hill, and

- A redirect from Deep Eddy Vodka to Heaven_Hill should be made.

Ironically, one of User:CBcleaner's references, namely: https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/06/vodka-brand-champion-2017/ , actually helped remove my doubts, by the US-Vodka-market table it includes: There are 39 brands included, and Deep Eddy Vodka shares bottom placement with 3 other brands (at 1.00 for 2016, which is the most recent year included there). That Deep Eddy Vodka can present high grown rate, isn't impressive: Anything can display high growth rates, when starting from a point of obscurity.

-- DexterPointy (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect This seems like the best approach. Surprised it hasn't come up before, but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery closed as delete only last month. The coverage is routine and in specialised magazines. We do not, and should not, aim to be a product listing service. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: (semi-off-topic) : Is there anyway to find out who created & edited the deleted Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery article? (Note! I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, so if you don't known why I'm asking, then it's most likely because I've failed pinging you, some hours ago.) -- DexterPointy (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to support my argument, I have outlined a couple of points here

1. I think there is an inconsistency in the way we are judging pages. Have a look at the page titled List of Vodkas. Ignoring the pages that have got flagged, we have several small brands where the pages have been reviewed and made stable by new page reviewers and admins. Is notability different for different brands in the same category? I'm not saying one wrong decision means we accept all but as a community, there should be consistency.

2. Second thing that concerns is that most people here have little knowledge of the spirits business. I have worked in the sector (though no where connected to Deep Eddy or any related party). Reaching 1 million cases is an achievement in this sector. The specialised magazines are major sector coverages. It's like how tech related news is more detailed in tech magazines or publications or journals. San Francisco World Spirits Competition is the second most prestigious one in the sector after International Wines and Spirits.

3. Local references are strong. Apart from Tito's, this is the only major Texas brand. Merging with Heaven Hills takes away the local focus which the brand has sustained before being bought out.

WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH is met in my opinion. (Zicorulz (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC))) — Zicorulz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment as nom I nominated this page after I saw it on WP:NPP. This page was created after Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deep_Eddy_Vodka_Distillery was closed as delete. I'm not opposed to a redirect to Heaven Hill. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Subject is notable by WP:GNG has anyone who wanted this page merged even bothered doing some researched if you did you would note that this brand has countless articles written about them only 30+ were used for citations and that more than enough for this article to stand alone. There simply no need to be merged with Heaven Hill. I also want to point out that besides the quantity of coverage is great the quality of coverage is also great and consists of major media outlets that are not connected to and don't usually run stories about brands of alcohol.Nottoohackneyed (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Some thoughts

- Respectfully, I disagree with some of the comments posted here. Given the fact, that most people are now commenting either merge or keep, I suppose everyone agrees to some degree of notability.

- A merge is usually done with the subject is not independent enough to stand on its own. Deep Eddy has a lot of coverage independent of Heaven Hill. The awards Deep Eddy Vodka has won are independent of Heaven Hill. A merge will not do justice to all the independent coverage it has

- Take an example of any liquor brand. When you google any name (I tried googling grey goose), the first 15 links are not news articles. They are all places to buy it from or events and random videos. I think that is the nature of this industry. The ranking of the selling websites is high. It doesn't and should not affect our judgement on notability. Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary - Commenting on some of the most recent contributions in this AfD.
- "there is an inconsistency in the way we are judging pages." : Wikipedia is, for various reason, a huge pile of inconsistencies. To strive for consistency, is a noble quest, but not a practical/usable argument, because: There is no consistency in the collective set of article, and no consistency amongst Wikipedians about what the consistency should be.
- "...concerns is that most people here have little knowledge of the spirits business.", and "San Francisco World Spirits Competition is the second most prestigious one in the sector after International Wines and Spirits." : From what I can tell, then the SF competition's outcomes looks like most Wine & Spirits competitions, in that about half of all participants end up getting a medal. (I only did a quick very rough estimate, so don't go quote me for saying 50%). Also, it was half a decade ago, since Deep Eddy won anything in the SF World Spirits competition.
- "... When you google any name (I tried googling grey goose), the first 15 links are not news articles. ..." : I don't see anyone having attempted to make a Google search into an argument, but just to prevent that from happening, then I'd like to note that: Googling something will nearly always return results, whenever that something actually exist, but that doesn't tell any tale about notability. (If I google my phone number, then I find it listed on various directory sites, i.e. it's mentioned "a lot" on the web. Yet, I don't think my phone number deserves a Wikipedia article.)
DexterPointy (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A merge would categorise deep eddy as one of the 20-30 odd brands listed on the Heaven Hill page. Deep Eddy doesn't fall in the same category or is definitely more notable than those. Most of the recent coverages for Deep Eddy are not related to the parent company. I don't agree with the merge votes. Independent notability is certainly established.

Hunter VanHook Hunter VanHook (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Hunter VanHook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. "fastest growing" is the only potential claim to notability , and it usually means Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Been following this debate for a while. Same as a number of editors here, I think this article has significant coverage from reliable sources and it sure passes WP:GNG, same as WP:ORGIND

Merging of a page to another is done when the page in context is not independent and can't stand alone probably due to lack of strong third party sources but I don't think any of this applly to this article. Fregib (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Fregib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep- There is a big difference between the quality of references in the first version and the edited version we have now. References are credible and reliable. None in the blacklist. Why are they not enough? I don't think having Deep Eddy makes us a product listing website. It qualifies under 3 metrics of sufficient coverage, reliable coverage and independent of deep eddy. My vote is definitely keep. 22:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryannair05 (talk • contribs) — Ryannair05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - I have been looking at the article for some time now, including the edit history. I must say that the article has tremendously evolved from how it was originally posted, which I believe was the initial reason it was scheduled for deletion. Reliable and strong references have been added. Based on my own research, I believe Deep Eddy Vodka is fast rising the ranks to become one of the world's most popular Vodka brands. I believe notability separate from the parent company exists in every coverage, and its popularity might keep rising making it even more distinct from the parent company in future. I don't agree with the rationale to merge. Give the article a chance.Coolsam726 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC) — Coolsam726 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note I initiated an SPI after this was closed the first time, but miraculously none of the new accounts !voting here are technically related... I've asked some other admins at WP:COIN to take a look and judge them on behaviour and also invited more people to comment here. SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete and Salt Almost all the sources are routine press releases and are therefore non RS. No coverage except in industry journals, fails to assert WP:SIGCOV. Fails to assert WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, SALT, and ban all keep !voters This article is ad copy and for good reason: look at the sources. They're all bought-journalism. For example, there are citations from Austin American-Statesman which might confuse some editors to think there's notability but look at this piece: "Deep Eddy Vodka, champions of easygoing summer sipping, have released a new vodka to their portfolio... Deep Eddy’s PR firm dropped off a sample for me to try. I was surprised by how much the aroma resembled that of a bottled grapefruit soda." (emphasis mine). How about this gem from Houston Chronicle: "Let's begin with the fast-growing Deep Eddy brand, which started with a straight vodka and added Lemon, Ruby Red Grapefruit, Cranberry and Sweet Tea flavors to its lineup." It's a literal mixology recipe. Many of the other citations (this, this, this, this, and this) gush about the corporate shake-up, and are evidently re-published press release from the lips of Eric Dopkins. This is what you get for putting your trust in the corporate media, whom shill for businesses and don't even admit they never learned how to be journalists. I also recommend every !keep voter be blocked for perpetrating this fraud on Wikipedia. There seem to be plenty of infringements of WP:CIR in this AfD, as almost nobody bothered to read the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's just one of 45 brands listed on the Heaven Hill page, I'm not sure that any of those are notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A few points to support my vote - this brand has hit one million cases which is actually not a common place event. If you are from texas, you know this brand. I agree on the Austin American Statesman article point that the previous editor raised and I will edit it out but that is not the article that justifies notability. Wall Street Journal, Kentucky.com are definitely credible publications. Heaven Hills, a Kentucky based brand owns over 30 brands. Only 3 made it to Wall Street Journal or Kentucky.com. The other two have Wikipedia pages.

• One other thing I have to say, the anger in this discussion would prevent anyone from commenting in support of the debate. The whole idea here is to have a healthy discussion. If someone is violating Wikipedia policies, then surely ban them but I don't think the strong language used here is healthy for a community. Godzilladude123 (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already voted keep above. It is worth that WP:AFD is not simple count of keep versus delete votes, it is a discussion on merits and value of notability of the article in question.scope_creep (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.