From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Previous Deletions[edit]

A note on previous deletions of this page. There is already a page on Zevia Cola, however the company has 15 brands--why a page for only one? This post is based off significant news coverage including network television and major newspapers, in addition to some books. I welcome comment on how to improve or expand the article. A list of flavours similar to those on similar pages is coming soon. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

add typical ingredients list, to include the sugar alcohol (forgot which one, too lazy to walk 6 feet to my fridge)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Zevia Cola into this article. HtownCat (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

<discussion> There are two articles on Zevia. I propose that the other article be merged into this one. This article contains more information and the other article seems to focus on one flavor, which could easily be added here. HtownCat (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support merge. The company and the product line are notable. An individual product Zevia Cola is not. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I see someone has tried to reload the exact same photos I used from the Zevia site that were deleted some time ago. Just want to confirm that I don't contest those prior deletions; I've learned better since as to what photos we can use and which we can't. I like the merge though, article looks okay these days. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

All removed as they clearly violate WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I tried adding those images to make a section like Coca-Cola#Brand portfolio. Can you tell me the difference between those images and the Zevia images? Sorry, did not realize this was a violation. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
See WP:NFCR#Coca-Cola packaging for the Coca-Cola article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. Going to go learn more about image policies now. :) HtownCat (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Coke article is a mess and should not be used as a model for building this one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Brand portfolio[edit]

I am adding the table back to the Ingredients and Brand Portfolio section. The images have been reuploaded to the Commons. I will remove the section on caffeine from the table, but I think that flavors and release dates are encyclopedic. HtownCat (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing them again. This is clearly listcruft, having no encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't a product brochure.
I wouldn't be surprised if they get deleted from Commons. All images there must be public domain, and these are images of logos which need a non-free use rationale. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zevia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Saw the template but no discussion. What's the concern about paid editing here? - Scarpy (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scarpy: You'd have to ask JJMC89 (talk · contribs) who added the tag. The article was originally created by a paid contributor, and at times in its history, it included blatant promotional content and a large gallery of high-resolution images of every damn soda can the company made. But it's been revised extensively since then, so I don't see it as a concern anymore. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
See the COIN thread and related SPI. If the article has already been cleaned up and complies with WP:NPOV, etc., please remove the tag. — JJMC89(T·C) 18:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: thanks for that the link to the thread. It looks like at this point nothing in it seems like egregious advertisement. It just looks like an article that had all of the POV taken out of it with some fragmented content left. - Scarpy (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)