Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Dot Vodka


 * 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. Secret account 04:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Dot Vodka

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Routine references, and a minor award not for the vodka, but just the label. An almost identical version was speedy deleted by another admin as A7 in 2011, but that was stretching the use of A7, for this is a product, so I bring it here.  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Weak delete - its vodka, so in-depth analysis in the New York Times is unlikely. The best we can hope for is that it might be profiled in a food & drink section of such a paper and for that to happen, it probably needs to have been around for a bit longer. There are some well-known blogs that have covered it, like Drink Hacker and a few items in industry publications like Bar Business Magazine. So there's significant coverage in blogs and the like but not much by way of coverage in reliable sources. WP:TOOSOON? Either way, I can't support keeping this at the moment. Stalwart 111  02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Gong   show  00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I was definitely leaning toward the keep side, and am still a bit hesitant to endorse deletion.  The product has definitely received decent coverage, and is fairly well-known, but it just hasn't gotten the amount of RS coverage (even if, as Stalwart says above, in a F+D section) that it needs.   dci  &#124;  TALK   02:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless more content or a stronger argument can be made towards its notability, I find most of the coverage run of the mill in what you would expect of a wide commercial vodka but nothing that particularly stands out. Mkdw talk 23:21, 17 March 2013 (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.