Talk:Cricket Cola

moved from article: sources are the bottle it self

Reads like advertisement
I think this page should be reworked as it reads like marketing rather than encyclopedic information. Anyone else see this? - Team4Technologies (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, reworked. Hope everyone likes it. Nick (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Never edited anything before, but I just removed some bogus claims, that weren't true to the cricket web- page information. Peace out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.136.152 (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the product and the article was part of a search result. However I also find that it still reads as an advertisement as of 2014.  The Health claims section might not be appropriate, as it relies on a primary source (which cannot avoid bias).  Moreover, these health effects are doubious and remind me of the advertisements to market old cocaine based products like Coca Cola as general medicines...  Moreover, the reference now redirects to some parking page.  Also a worthwhile question: is this product notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article?  76.10.128.192 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)