Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery

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. Killiondude (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Eddy Vodka Distillery

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

Non-notable company. There is no WP:INHERITORG from Heaven Hill. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Heaven Hill as per WP:ATD-M. Source searches are falling short to qualify a standalone article, but the suggested merge target article has only one lone passing mention in the form of a link to this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is very little content here except the non-notable list of products and the apparently original research about water quality, and the Heaven Hill article already mentions the brand. Tacyarg (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional cruft on a nn brand. The parent article already mentions it; there's no suitable encyclopedi prose worth merging and there's no need to preserve the article history, since it only contains spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 6 January 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.