Talk:Pizza Hut

RFD discussion: July 2016
Doesn't belong in a dictionary. Belongs in an encyclopedia. 2602:306:3653:8920:B5CF:D32F:7F21:D1E4 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose it could meet WT:BRAND, in being casually and non-commercially mentioned without saying what it is, but it's pretty clearly a restaurant from the name (unlike McDonald's). I don't like this kind of entry. Equinox ◑ 13:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, send to RfV to determine whether it does, in fact, meet WT:BRAND. If the citations supporting this are not forthcoming, it will be deleted. bd2412 T 15:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WT:RFV. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–October 2016
It needs citations that meet WT:BRAND. A RFD discussion what created for it today, but I believe this is rather a case for RFV.

McDonald's looks like a comparable case. See Talk:McDonald's for past RFV discussions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)