Talk:SoBe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the Soft Drinks WikiProject, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to all non-alcoholic beverages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Bong trivia

Whoever deleted the part about the waterfall bongs made an error--this is a common practice, especially in the American Pacific northwest, and therefore relevant to the article. Diocles

I do not think it is relevant, because you could make a bong out of any bottle. Bong is an encyclopedic topic, but to include that SoBe bottles are used for making bongs... that does not sound "relevant". It is not necessary to include such information about drug use, which is illegal in most English speaking countries. --Spebi 07:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that SoBe bottles in particular are useful for this purpose because the glass is thin (and easy to puncture) near the bottom. As far as I know, SoBe bottles enjoy exclusive preference for this purpose among all people who use waterfall bongs, which are not used exclusively for "illegal" purposes (in California, one of the United States, certain sick citizens are allowed to legally purchase and consume marijuana). In some circles, the word "SoBe" is so strongly associated with the waterfall method that actually drinking the stuff is a secondary meaning. Also, you've made the short-sighted (and false) assumption that all people who read English reside in English-speaking countries. Besides, the point of an encyclopedia is to collect information, not to serve as a hortatory legal compendium for modern youth. Don't change it again, unless you have a legitimate reason (one which extends beyond feeling "icky" at the thought of drug use). This is an encyclopedia that is meant to be used by adults. Diocles

Interesting. My own thoughts:
  • This is an encyclopedia that is meant to be used by everybody.
  • The point of an encyclopedia is not to "collect", but also to organize appropriately. The argument here is not about whether the assertions are true, or whether they are information. The argument here is and should be about whether this information belongs specifically in the article about SoBe.
  • The accusation that removal of the "bong issue" is due to people feeling "icky" is a cheap attempt to change the subject and reframe the debate.
  • Threatening people ("don't change it again") is not going to convince anyone of anything except the fact that you are not worth listening to; I don't recommend it as a debate strategy.
  • The important one: In reality, what people of a very narrowly defined user group (that is, people who use waterfall bongs) choose to DO with the bottles, or even what that narrowly defined group associates with the bottles, is not (IMHO) above the threshold for notability standard. For example, a much larger user group (people who smoke weed overall) associates apples with the ability to hollow them out and smoke out of them, yet the Wikipedia entry for Apple does not contain any reference to such non-traditional use. Similarly, the word Screen is perceived by that much larger group as referring to pipe screens, but not ONE of the numerous types of screen listed on the disambig page even mention that use. There is neither precedence nor viability here.
  • Ultimately, if it has been written about in reliable publications, it is possibly notable TO that community that SoBe bottles are associated with certain uses. As such, the information might indeed belong in Wikipedia...but if it does, it belongs on the pages about objects of and for that community. I recommend you add the information to the page on Gravity bong, and make your case there.

Jfarber 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, as with anything, needs a source.137.138.46.155 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: in keeping with the Wikipedia style manual, I have REMOVED the section called TRIVIA, and replaced it with a section called "SoBe in Popular Culture" -- which improves the viability of the two video game references which were already in the article. As an interesting side effect (heh), however, there is no longer an appropriate place FOR the above information in the article. Jfarber 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I've tried to NPOV this article as far as possible, but what can you possibly write about this company? Falcon 04:32, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

How about what was already there.... you've messied the format, added POV, and removed good information.... I'd like to hear some justification or I'm going to revert your edits. DryGrain 04:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Archived discussion

Article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 26 to May 3 2004, consensus was to keep the main article but delete the sub product pages. Discussion:

The company is not particularily significant, and if it does warrant an article, this one is not it - it is composed primarily of a list of products. Delete or at least clean up significantly. Falcon 17:18, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. The company is quite notable, at least in (parts of?) the US. I adamantly oppose the individual products being linked, and the individual articles for said products, but an article about the company is fine. Sure, it would be better if the article expanded more on the co's origins, and how it got so popular so fast, etc. but I wouldn't even add it to Cleanup, as there are already so many worse articles already backlogged there. Niteowlneils 17:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Company is reasonably notable. Keep company page, the product pages are already listed on VfD. -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:31, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I didn't recognize the company under the name "South Beach Beverage Company," though. However I certainly recognized SoBe. Make the individual names into an inline, word-wrapped list so it takes less page on the page and unlink them (at least until some invidiual beverage flavor makes the naitonal news. Definitely keep the redirect from SoBe. But... Yikes! Look at its What Links Here. As noted by Niteowlneils there are a bunch of individual articles such as Long John Lizard's Grape Grog which simply are copies of the label information on ingredients and nutrition; delete those articles with extreme prejudice. (Do we need to do individual VfD's on each?) Wikipedia is not a dieter's calorie counter, and Wikipedia is not a compendium of food labels. Dpbsmith 18:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Specifically, the articles which delenda est (as in Carthago delenda est) are:
      • SoBe Green Tea 3G
      • SoBe Black & Blue Berry Brew
      • SoBe No Fear
      • MacLizard's Special Recipe Lemonade
      • Long John Lizard's Grape Grog
  • Keep, certainly. Keep the individual product pages, too. Or at least list them separately so they all get a fair chance; I certainly hope if the vote on SoBe No Fear goes against it, those other product pages won't be deleted along with it. Everyking 19:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Those products are also mentioned as included in the VfD debate and people are also voting on them. Why do we need seperate pages? The articles are more or less identical. Falcon 03:55, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relevant and notable. Nohat 21:28, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
  • Keep. All of it. It is a significant company and specific product articles are good info. Falcon, the wiki is not the place to make personal attacks. You have heavily edited and criticized many of the articles listed on my user page under the My Contributions heading, and I think it stems from the fact that I npov'ed Vampire lifestyle. I did not mean that as a personal attack on you and certainly have done nothing to incur your anger. Once you submitted that article you opened it to editing from the rest of the 'pedia. Don't treat it as if it was your own. DryGrain 21:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Drygrain, if you want to accuse me of trolling you or something, keep that in our talkpages. VfD is not a means for resolving disputes with users; more or less I am trying to draw attention to this article and besides, voting on deletion will never do any harm. Every article should be put here at least once; this ensures the topic is actually worthwhile. Falcon 14:03, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The company is notable, especially as an arm of Pepsico. The product seems to be readily available, at least here in Southern California. I'd also move to expand on the different drink listings, but without the ingredient list. Maybe just keep it down to the flavor and any active ingredients for energy and stamina and such. If I may be permitted to be POV for a moment, the orange cream "Tsunami" energy drink is absolutely delicious. It's like drinking a 50-50 bar! - Lucky 6.9 22:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Lucky, I would have included things like flavor, but thought that would be a POV. I mean, how could you express how something tastes without relating it to something else, which is subjective and therefore POV? If there was a way to measure taste objectively, I would have added it, but I cant come up with one. And you counter your comment on the taste of Tsunami, I have found that SoBe "Fuerte" tastes exceptionally like Delsym cough syrup.
    • LOL! Actually, my comment was intentionally POV in defense of the listing. I enjoy Tsunami, and the pina colada-flavored concoction which I think is called "Lizzard Blizzard." However, you're absolutely right about flavor being subjective. I'm just keeping that opinion here on the "votes for deletion" page. No way does that belong in an article. - Lucky 6.9 23:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd also move to expand on the different drink listings, but without the ingredient list. Maybe just keep it down to the flavor and any active ingredients for energy and stamina and such. That's what I meant about flavor. You suggested that I keep flavor in the articles themselves. That's all that my 'flavor is subjective' bit was about. I enjoy Tsunami as well, although my favorite SoBe remains to be their SoBe Green Tea 3G. See how useful that was? :) DryGrain 00:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course...my bad. I merely suggested an unalloyed description of the flavor without the "adspeak" on the label. Something like this, perhaps:
      • Product: SoBe Transmission Tonic
      • Main Flavor(s): Stale Beer
      • Active Ingredients(s): Secret Herbal Extracts

Nice and clean, bada boom, bada bing. - Lucky 6.9 03:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

      • We need that about as much as we need articles on every product and recipe there is in existance. Would it be appropriate for someone to write an article on, say, a recipe for spaghetti sauce published in a cooking book? and besides, the article would be far too short and stublike. Wikipedia is almost certainly not intended to contain articles on non-notable things; the individual products are not notable at all.please sign your comments
        • We could have something like that under the list of products in the SoBe page itself instead of seperate articles for all the pages. Can we all agree that this is a good compromise? (And Lucky, to say that it tastes like Stale Beer is a POV. There's no way we can represent what it tastes like, unless we outline the main ingredients "peach, kiwi, and guava" or what have you.) DryGrain 05:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the article on company, the company is notable. About the articles on individual products, reproducing the information from the label of the bottle is not "good info" for encyclopedia. Delete those, unless the author can write why individual drinks are notable. Andris 22:24, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the company article, delete the individual product articles. RickK 23:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep main article, delete product articles. DopefishJustin 01:31, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is actually the wrong place to be listing this article. Is there anywhere like a Votes for Cleanup? Falcon 03:10, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Votes to delete the list of products, with the rationale that the information is both verbatim to and redundant with that which is available on the website and useless in any other form: Falcon 03:58, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Falcon 03:58, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep company article, delete individual flavor pages. Postdlf 5:23 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep article, but delink product list. How asinine, to have a long, individually-linked product list. We don't even need to know all the individual products. But the company is significant. jaknouse 23:37, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with keeping the main SoBe article. The company is notable for, among other reasons, successfully convincing MAD Magazine to whore out their mascot for advertisements. They make popular, commercially-successful drinks. That's fine and noteworthy. DS 03:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Aren't they the ones who make SobĂ©? Wiwaxia 06:51, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Moved to SoBe as that is the more popular name. anthony (see warning)

End discussion

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/b/Talk%7ESoBe_9167.html"