Talk:Richmond (cigarette)

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles

Untitled

from VfD:

This article describes a brand of cigarettes produced by Imperial Tobacco. Recommend merge. Inter 09:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep rather than merge. --JuntungWu 11:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge, and add an entry to the Richmond (disambiguation) disambiguation page if absolutely necessary. Should we have an article on every single brand of cigarette?
Merge. I would expect to find the information on the Cigarette page or possibly as disambiguation on Richmond (disambiguation). Maybe it would be helpful to have a Cigarette Brands page. In any case, the Richmond (cigarette) page is unneeded. Carrp 16:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Wyss 21:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer a List of cigarette brands page over "Cigarette Brands". Watch the capital letters. I don't think most cigarettes differ enough from each other to warrant seperate articles. Make the list and redirect there. Put note on Richmond (disambiguation) and a link on Cigarette. Mgm|^(talk) 22:51, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Why not have a page on each brand of cigarette? You could describe the advertising campaigns and slogans of each, When the cigarette was first manufactured, list comparable brands, and show packaging, on even the most minor brands. Keep.
- Unsigned, presumably by accident, vote left by User:Rhymeless
  - Yep, mine. Sorry about that.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And all these things are notable to public health, policy, marketing, tort law, etc. Keep Samaritan 00:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 17:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yawn. Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 03:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge unless someone can add info that shouldn't be on the Imperial Tobacco page. BlankVerse 07:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Megan1967 01:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Accuracy

Makes a number of potentially libellous claims with no citations. Iridescent 11:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I smoke this brand, and must admit their association of poor quality. I have attempted to maintain NPOV in the small edits and cleanups I have made on this article. I am in the process of adding citations. Early Q 17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Players

Perhaps this article should be merged with Players cigarettes? --Mrtobacco 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]