Talk:Winn-Dixie

RFD discussion: August 2018–February 2019
We don't have Walmart, Tesco, Walgreens, Hooters or Lidl so why should we have this? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "all words in all languages"? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a genericized trademark > delete. Per utramque cavernam 08:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reason given by PUC. Don't think WT:BRAND has been satisfied in this case. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't alter the fact that I didn't know about Winn-Dixie. Maybe we should include retail chains. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per PUC. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Replace with and . DCDuring (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete / or Replace, whatever. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete / soft-redirect to Wikipedia, per DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Abstain. First off, the nomination does not refer to WT:CFI or any CFI-based rationale as formulated; it rather makes some form of extrapolative argument. To amend this, let us assume the nomination refers to WT:CFI; then, let me point out that the section of CFI has no consensus. That said, I admit that multi-word company names are more liable to deletion than single-word company names. By contrast, I support inclusion of Walmart, Tesco, Walgreens, Hooters and Lidl as company names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep by the fcuk criteria. DTLHS (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What does fcuk have to do with this? bd2412 T 20:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Replaced with and . bd2412 T 03:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)