This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Brands 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I feel that the wording should be changed, after sending imperial tobacco an email, I was told that the tin was a temporary idea only ever sold in specific clubs, bars and festivals and was never widely available and it was never considered to be on trial to become permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.121.60 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

While obviously your communication with them cannot be included in the article, there is no reference provided supporting the belief it is being considered to become permanent; unless one is provided I can see no reason not to take it at face value as a 'limited edition' and have amended the text accordingly.--Chrisc le (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deleted a section entirely “Controversy” that contained a few local news items that happened to be related to L&B (e.g. ‘Liverpool man caught selling fake cigarettes’) They were likely copy pasted from elsewhere, though properly edited and sourced inline, so perhaps some original work was involved. The issue was that from its use throughout Wikipedia, “Controversy” sections relate to the actions of or reactions to a brand, not news items where the brand involved is tangential. Further, it is not custom of the English Wikipedia to include full news items.

It would seem that the encouranging thing to do for an editor who followed the edict “be bold” would be to provide a better place for this work. Would editors with larger stake refer him/hir/sie to WikiNews as the appropriate space, or should we encourage this editor to make the stories cited one-sentence summaries and create a section such as “Crimes involving Lambert & Burton”?

Thanks,

17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Petropetro (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply