Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka

Keep - to support my argument, I have outlined a couple of points here
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) 03:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

Keep
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) 01:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a very informative and individual page. This brand is very famous. It has reliabe source. I think this page is perfect for published, I support to keep this page. Bipchem1997 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

keep wikipedia page
Very informative and individual. Bipchem1997 (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)