Talk:Dean & DeLuca

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
I reverted the article to a previous version due to the obvious copyright infringement by 206.231.101.2 and by Brokentuskk. It is back to its original stubby size, however, the entire article was a copy from D & DL's website. Tingalex 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor is incorrect
As Brokentuskk was a Dean & DeLuca marketing employee, the infringement isn't so obvious. Perhaps a quick email next time. And how would anyone here know he's an employee? --Fredrick day 14:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) it doesn't matter wether or not he is or was a marketing employee, it is copyvio material, and therefor it's removal is correct. Martijn Hoekstra 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus marketing employees shouldn't edit pages at all. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fiction section
I just restored the fiction section, which was removed in 2008 see here. I do think this is and E part of the D&D history since it D&D represents a lifestyle, which is used in film and TV. -- Mdd (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there's no context. My understanding is that Dead & DeLuca is posh - the American equivalent of Marks & Spencers, but moreso - but nothing in the text supports this. And the "popular culture" entries are useless because instead of discussing the store's context, they just point out that it appeared briefly in the background of an old episode of a long-forgotten sitcom. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Joel Dean" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Joel Dean. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)