Talk:Everest (cigarette)

Tidy
I've tidied the article, in particular reducing the content about Abbey road. This was inappropriate weight in the article with detail not relevant to the subject. --Errant (chat!) 14:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Undue tag
As noted above when I removed it the first time; more than 50% of this article about a company is a pop culture reference to them inspiring an eventually-unused temporary album name. It's wholly undue; especially as aside from about one line the content is about the album rather than the company. I recommend copying the content to the article. --Errant (chat!) 17:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ErrantX, you added undue tag to a section of the article. Please explain why. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  15:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? It is a famous album, lots of story points, made lots of people, places and products famous (this cigarette being one of them), has been well documented in primary and secondary sources (including books). Why one line mention?  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a famous album, and probably worth mentioning. But we don't need to relate the whole tale; a link to the album article will do. made lots of ... products famous (this cigarette being one of them). If that is true then there will be a source that says so. The sources on the article are a bit thin, akin to passing mention. --Errant (chat!) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ErrantX, Why? Who decides that certain fact should be mentioned only in one line? You? Which Wikipedia policy says that? And sources are thin? Have you looked at them? Following are the few sources quoted;
 * Official website: From which angle is this a thin source? Oh yeah - primary; is it?
 * BBC News: I hope you have heard about something called BBC News who wrote an entire section on this topic??
 * Book: Abbey Road: The Story of the World's Most Famous Recording Studios written by Brian Southall, Peter Vince (operations manager at Abbey Road Studios) and Allan Rouse clearly and in detail talks about this.
 * Another book: "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions", book by Mark Lewisohn who is an English author and historian, regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on the English rock band the Beatles. In this book, on page 13-14 someone called Paul McCartney (I think you might know him), talks in details about the Everest cigarette. On page 193, Geoff Emerick and John Kurlander both have been quoted on this incident.
 * People like Paul McCartney, Geoff Emerick, John Kurlander, Mark Lewisohn, Brian Southall, Peter Vince and several other sources are discussing this in detail at various forums, but one WP user opines that only one line should be mentioned because its his opinion?? Why are you attempting to distort a well established historical fact?? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  04:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we do, that's the point. Please lets not get into unpleasantness, I'd just like to discuss this content (which is okay, we're allowed to do that). I think what is telling about those sources is that they are all about the album and the content we are discussing, presented here in some length, is without exception only a trivial mention in each context. Apart from a one, maybe two, sentences relevant to the company itself (and don't lose sight of the fact that this article is about the company, not the album) most of the content is about the actual album cover that was chosen. I like the content, I think it's good content. However, I think it is not relevant to this article and should be included in the article for the album. Certainly a somewhat lengthy quote seems overkill, when it represents around 30% of the article prose. Finally, what you've done is made this article about a small historical detail an not about a company. --Errant (chat!) 07:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ErrantX, that's your point of view. I am not getting into any unpleasantness; I just disagreed with you and placed facts (sorry if you felt bad). Facts mentioned in the article are well sourced, backed by several independent verifiable reliable sources and is of historic significance. I see no problem in the article.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is your point of view. How about we ask for more input to see how best the interpret this? I've dug into the sources a little more and cast the net wider and I am not sure this company is actually notable, aside from the passing reference in Beatles sources. backed by several independent verifiable reliable sources and is of historic significance; this is not my problem, all of that is true. My problem is that there is undue weight to this content out of proportion to an article about a company. --Errant (chat!) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A good way to solve this (where two editors disagree of interpretation of policy) is to ask another Wikipedian for a third opinion, which I have done --Errant (chat!) 11:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello both, 3O in attendance. In my opinion, the undue tag has merit. This is because WP articles should draw predominantly on sources sharing the same/similar subject as the article. Here, the article is about a brand of cigarette, but the predominant sources are about an album. Hence, the content itself is basically fine, but it should be in the article about the album. A brief mention of the album story here, linking to the album article, is of course appropriate. HTH—Aquegg (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Packets of 10 Cigarettes, 1960s (3624085644).jpg