Deletion of Four (drink) (2nd nomination)

Comment: the close should have been sent to  first, as I saw consensus to delete, but now that it's here, it's still have serious sourcing issues, the two sources are still press releases that fails our sourcing guidelines and our notabilty guidelines. I really want the keeps to reconsider
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: I am not sure why this article was not deleted last time. A press release and drinks directory were added as 'sources', but they cannot be classed as |reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, the article provides insufficient content, context or analysis to demonstrate |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CORP)

Comment: The sources given include a blog and a press release in an industry-specific publication. This could easily become notable at some point--alcopops are quite popular in the UK, for instance. Need to have a |reliable independent source (or three) which writes about the product. For now, the article is little more than an advert for a product which is not (yet) notable. As far as the previous AfD, it was closed as no consensus, when the only Keep came from the person who added the thin sourcing--a relist would have been more appropriate at the time. Yes, this could have gone to DRV, but I think the suggestion that we keep just because the previous AfD was so recent is flawed. It's similar to AfD arguments of (too soon, not enough edits, too soon after failed).  is not satisfied by the article in its current state
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CORP)