Talk:House of Swan
(Redirected from Talk:Swan (rolling papers))
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Megatonman in topic Notability
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Article scope
editWhat is this page about? It started on a product but now has material added on the company. If it is on the product the company info needs removing. If it is on the company then it needs moving to a correct title and with a new lead. BlueValour (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Notability
editAt the moment there is nothing in the article that would enable it to meet WP:N (product) or WP:CORP company. BlueValour (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well if we're talking about the rolling papers then I'd say they're pretty notable. Prior to 1998 they were the second best selling papers in the UK, after Rizla, accoring to this site: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-97251802.html. Most newsagents here, in Northern Ireland, stock only Rizla and Swan. I can't get a source for that though.
- I think part of the reason this article's having difficulty growing is that, with a google search or what have you, one has to go through so many pages of websites selling tobacco products before finding anything solid about the history of the papers or the company the produces them etc.I really think that it's just a matter of someone sitting down and going through it all.
- Remove the article if you like. I'm going to see what I can find out and if I can get enough information for a decent article then I'll put it up again. If not then I think the information here could be worked into the Swedish Match article. SuperlativeHors (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also agree but the first decision is the subject of the page; at the moment it is an uncomfortable hybrid. BlueValour (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, yea i saw the deleation and thought i'd extend it a bit. I realise your comment on it bieng an uncomfortable hybrid, i think we should change it into Swan the subsiduary and a seperate article and have its product within that. I tried to research it a bit bit it is difficult. Swan producs are very common in England in most retail outlets, especially where i am, so i do believe it warrents it's own article Megatonman (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)