Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky 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   keep. v/r - TP 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Pinky Vodka

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, No significant notability asserted. No external refs. Even the awards are only referenced by the award giving organisation. Very promotional and probably advert  Velella  Velella Talk 09:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  The one ref given is lacking detail and questionable.   Text sounds self-descriptive/promotional.  Except for this gem in the criticism section: "Its current market is limited to women and effeminate men." North8000 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per, , , and . SL93 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - also per, , , and . clear indication of notability for product.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable vodka, though three of the sources linked by SL93 are questionable (adweek is borderline reliable source, many press releases, a catalog in Wine Magazine definally not a reliable source, and the last source is a want list, trivial source), other sources such as the SFGate source and this, among other makes it meet wikipedia guidelines. Secret account 04:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect  to United Breweries Group. The subject's notability is borderline because the references (I've personally never heard of the websites above, but again who's to say I'm well-informed). I can hardly see the page be expanded, so why not merge and make another page fuller? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – per Secret. /Julle (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Secret about the sources identified as dubious, but disagree about the SFGate and moodiereport.com sources. They both read like press releases to me, barely distinguishable from the pure ad copy that is this article. Oh, and for folks who might think that this bit from the SFGate piece means anything, notability-wise: "Just this month, the Mission District's Luna Park restaurant won a statewide contest with its Pinky-infused drink, the Vespa," have a look at a different puff piece from moodiereport, where you'll discover that this contest was in fact sponsored by the vodka company. Notability is not evidenced for this clear violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Cheers magazine covers it. "March 1, 2006... PINKY VODKA uses a dozen botanicals including violets, rose petals and wild strawberries, for a versatile, "pink" taste, according to importer Liquidity Brands. Launched in Los Angeles, Calif. last month, the elegantly packaged, pink-colored".. you have to pay to read the rest of it. A lot of Google news results showing it exist, and its certainly a real thing.  Not sure if any of those awards are notable or not.   D r e a m Focus  10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, there is a giant sub-industry within the travel and luxury goods sector of physical and purely electronic magazines, newsletters, "reports", etc. where all or much of their content is straight or lightly warmed over press releases. Whether it is done in exchange for direct payments, for advertising, or just to bulk out their offering, it does result in a lot of copies of the same or somewhat tweaked press releases popping up on Google, but, really, does it matter at all to a subject's notability if you can point to 100 copies of a press release on Google? And you are right to question the awards. Let's have a look at them:
 * 2009 Gold Medal - Beverage Testing Institute
 * This "institute" is a marketing service company that sells spirits producers and marketers the opportunity to be rated on the argument that they "obtain valuable marketing tools by participating in our reviews." This service is provided in exchange for $200 plus two bottles of the product. Evidently, the Pinky people ponied up an extra $200 to have a picture of the bottle included.
 * 2009 Gold Medal - Frontier Magazine Buyers' Forum Award
 * An industry magazine holds a dinner for (presumably) its advertisers and hands out awards.
 * 2009 Medal Winner, Packaging Design - San Francisco World Spirits Competition
 * 2009 Medal Winner - San Francisco World Spirits Competition
 * Evidently a professional enterprise, although you'd have to email them to find out the product placement fee entrance fee. Four categories of medals: double gold, gold, silver, bronze. Pinky only managed bronze in both categories, but that's still good, right? Well, actually, it looks as though all or almost all entrants were given a prize. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 5 October 2011 (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.