Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge & redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Three approaches were presented here. Some supported that the article be kept on the basis that there are a number of sources discussing this name, and that this very Wikipedia article has been the subject of sources. However, justification for this position was often based on subjective notions of importance or popularity. Others argued it should be deleted, noting that not all newsworthy subjects require Wikipedia articles. Some also expressed concern that the article could be susceptible to policy violations and should be deleted and protected from recreation. However, the name clearly has coverage, and we have methods to address policy violations. Consensus favored merging and redirecting to an article describing how the name was surfaced and the aftermath. Support for this position contended that the majority of coverage about the name is in the context of this particular episode. Some individuals also changed their position to supporting merge midway through this discussion.

Before redirecting the article, I will take care of merging any relevant material to the target shortly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J Drumpf

Donald J Drumpf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginally notable character, which is notable only as part of the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episode "Donald Trump." This does not merit general notability on its own.

Also, most of the text is copied verbatim, or paraphrased, from the page "Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)," so this article is totally redundant. epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: This is not a duplicate article, the subject matters are different though there are similarities between the two articles. This article's text is not copied, most of it is my original summary of the content of the show and related citations. This parody character is not marginal, although many conservatives would prefer it was. The parody character is more "popular" than Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, two humans running for the office of President of the United States. The parody character has tweeted more than 2,000 times and the parody character has a following of almost 27,000 people on Twitter alone. This parody character cannot be considered marginal by any measure. Note: Additional comments, this article has now been picked up by major media and removing it could prevent millions of people from finding out more about this important parody character. See these articles [1][2] --Potguru (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114
  2. ^ http://www.bustle.com/articles/144811-john-oliver-takes-on-donald-drumpf-as-only-the-last-week-tonight-host-can-it
@Potguru: Would you mind changing your "oppose deletion" !vote to "keep," per WP:AFDFORMAT? Thanks. I know you want to keep the article, so this modification will help administrators more easily see your "keep" !vote. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DataflowBot/output/Top_20_enwiki_articles_by_edits_and_editors_in_past_7_days_(id-1) one of the top edited article. I don't know how I feel at the moment. I guess, if forced, right now I'd say keep... but it really depends what the article looks like at any given time --Potguru (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Clearly the article you wrote is far superior (since you copied all my hard work). Please please please just delete the gd page. --Potguru (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – More and more articles from reliable sources continue to be published online about this topic; I may change (have changed) my !vote to a keep later on. North America1000 23:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victor, Daniel (March 2, 2016). "Donald Drumpf: A Funny Label, but Is It Fair". The New York Times.
  • Webber, Stephanie (March 3, 2016). "Donald Drumpf Wikipedia Now Exists After John Oliver's Trump Takedown". Us Weekly. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  • Felter, Claire Elizabeth (March 2, 2016). "How To Use The Donald Drumpf Chrome Extension, Because A "Drumpfinator" Is Exactly What Your Internet Browser Needs". Bustle. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  • THR Staff (29 February 2016). "John Oliver Unleashes on Donald Trump, Claims Actual Family Name Is "Drumpf"". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 3 March 2016.
  • Crawford, Hilary E. "Donald Drumpf's Wikipedia Page Is Proof That John Oliver's 'Last Week Night' Segment Had The Impact It Deserves". Bustle. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  • "Other Amazing Donald Drumpf Merchandise You Can Buy, Because Pissing Off Donald Trump Is Priceless". Bustle. Retrieved 4 March 2016.
  • "John Oliver Destroys Donald Trump In 'Last Week Tonight' Rant". Inquisitr. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  • Comment – I have modified my !vote above to "keep with an option to merge". Also modified my comment, and have added more sources there. North America1000 13:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) - as I am in the UK (and wasn't paying attention) I found this Drumpf article very helpful in getting me up to speed on why / what the Drumpf hashtag is on Twitter. However having read the article and the relate DT-LWTonight one I think the info from this page would be better placed there (this article has a lot of information that's absent from the DT-LWTonight one). Beyond that I've no vested interest in the outcome. JoBrodie (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) as per the reasons mentioned above given that the character concept is a derivation of the epsiode and it's campaign. There's direct precedent in terms of Jeff the Diseased Lung in a Cowboy Hat. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge / Redirect Duplicative of Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). If there is anything worth merging, we can do that, but I don't know that there is. Maybe the LWT article doesn't yet mention any trademarks that Oliver filed. Need to look into that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Donald J. Drumpf currently redirects to the LWT episode. Is that a better redirect target than Donald Trump? I'm ambivalent about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Potguru redirected the redirect to Donald J Drumpf, which looks likes it will soon be a double redirect. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the LWT article is the correct redirect. There's little chance someone would search for "Drumpf" intending to end up at "Trump". Redirecting to Trump would likely only cause frustration. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with this line of thinking. "Donald Drumpf", "Donald J. Drumpf", etc. should redirect to the LWT epsiode. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: no reason not to keep it at this point TeeVeeed (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of reasons have been presented that you're not arguing against. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge to the Last Week Tonight episode, or merge the Last Week Tonight episode to this: The two have significant overlap, and neither are or can be particularly long. pbp 19:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2#Donald Drumpf. The way things look right now, it's poised to point to a different place than this article, which doesn't seem to serve readers' interests. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many related discussions going on simultaneously. There are discussions about redirects and redirecting, and merge/deletion discussions. I don't think notability is a question here. The segment is clearly notable. So we should be having a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
– North America1000 19:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this diff says a lot. Can we please just redirect this article to the LWT segment article and stop these run-around discussions? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that diff says is I uploaded an image and that in that image was a caption. What are you suggesting the diff says other than that? --Potguru (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I agree, please, I hate begging :P Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight).--Frmorrison (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article is an insightful and informative source of information about a public figure who might be president. It is therefore too important to be removed.Theoptimizers (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of Theoptimizers edits are to this page. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Theoptimizers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Are you seriously saying that? The article is about a parody of a presidential candidate, not about the candidate himself. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - There's no reason to have an independent article about this parody character. Delete it, or redirect it to the LWT article... Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The article in question has been mentioned by Bustle.com, here. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article holds no relevance beyond the Late Night Tonight segment (though I debate the significance of a segment of an episode of a TV show as well). heat_fan1 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page is about the nexus of genealogy, politics, and American pop culture. As such it has a unique and justifiable place right here. GibsonTaylor (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GibsonTaylor (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Note - This AfD is generating some discussion on social media. Expect some SPAs to start showing up soon. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a meme that is big for now; it would be crazy for Wikipedia to delete it, proving how awful and bureaucratic and petty wikipedia insiders are. And actually the article being separate from the article on the John Oliver episode seems proper. After some time (a year or more), if/when the meme is no longer big, the article could perhaps be merged into the episode article (especially if there's a catastrophic loss of electrons in the universe, requiring economy). I came from the Wikipedia newsletter page, not from social media. --doncram 23:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to LWT article - given media coverage too large to be ignored and too large for section on the main DJT article. -- Tawker (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Media outlets are now quoting the Wikipedia page for information about this meme. It might be valid to delete or redirect the article when it is no longer topical but I think it should exist as a separate article during the campaign. Wikipedia has Binders full of women and a full Category:Political internet memes. I think Donald J. Drumpf is as valid as any others in that category. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "It might be valid to delete or redirect the article when it is no longer topical"... Notability is not temporary. Either the "character" is notable now and forever or it isn't. In this case, it isn't. It's a parody tweeter. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have to point out, because I realize that it's not yet mentioned in this AfD, that the parody Twitter account "https://twitter.com/RealDonalDrumpf", being cited as a reason to keep this article, joined Twitter in May 2013. Surely there has been a spike in interest in the account since the episode aired, but the account and the episode are otherwise not related. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I count five times you've interjected your opinion Moboshu as I just pointed out on the talk page. Per policy could you please stop harassing the posters? Thanks! --Potguru (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to see how that note could be seen as harassment. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not harassing anyone. I'm bringing good points into this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the note at the top of the page about canvassing covers the issue. Editors should confine their comments to a single section, out of respect for the community. This particular editor has posted, I think 6 separate times in this thread now. --Potguru (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the note at the top of the page calls this a discussion. That's what I'm doing, I'm discussing. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's worth keeping. If you search the internet for this topic, the wikipedia article is a reasonable representation. Pez098 (talk) 3:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Pez098 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete / Merge / Redirect to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Clearly so related to the episode that it should not be separated. If you actually read the content of this page, there is very little on the "parody character". Most content is talking about the impact of Oliver's show! starship.paint ~ KO 05:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major social event. It is a moment in a political campaign, and it has enough references to be considered notable. Parody characters are allowed on Wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outside of this, there is no notability to the article, and it should be redirected to the relevant episode, and then fully-protected to prevent recreation in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktr101: A clarification about what you mean by "outside of this" in your !vote above would be helpful. Do you mean that outside of this AfD discussion there's no notability? Also, note that articles are not inherently notable or non-notable, topics are. Notability for such topics is typically assessed based upon the level and depth of coverage a topic has received in reliable sources. Is your !vote based upon personal opinion, or an evaluation of available source coverage about the topic? North America1000 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: My apologies, as I should have stated that "outside of this" referred to a lack of notability outside of the initial show, and more of a one event kind of situation. I hope that makes a bit more sense, so let me know if you need more clarification. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its one of those meme which has the potential to be around a very long time and Wikipedia has become its biggest hub ...deleting it would probably gain it more 'notoriety' which would mean it would have to be undeleted anyways..--Stemoc 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stemoc: but what about the overlap? This article is virtually a subset of Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Just compare the content, couldn't it be merged? starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even now, there is a huge overlap between the two pages. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean "yuuuuge"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). This is not a character, this is a comedy bit. The other article more accurately described the subject and the content of this article can be worked into that one. HighInBC 17:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge(edit: after reading comments in this discussion the meme seems not to be a character but a satire referencing Donald Trump himself based on a family name from several centuries ago. That satire comes from the John Oliver show, so should be merged there), since as a stand-alone meme this "character" is bound to get more events and references in addition to the Last Week Tonight episode. The character was created there, but that doesn't mean it's the totality of its possible place in popular culture. Randy Kryn 17:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... seems to me that the consensus is to merge it with the LWT article (all single-purpose accounts aside.) Individuals on Twitter are encouraging people to come here and vote Keep. This is probably the reason for all the Keep votes with the "it's a good meme" justification. IMO this pretty clearly should be merged into the LWT segment. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Merge / Redirect  : Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) explains the situation and the impact of the episode. There is no separate "parody character" as the article claims, simply criticism and mocking of the man himself --MattMauler (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop: See WP:NTEMP, "notability is not temporary". North America1000 18:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: By "ending in" I don't mean that the phenomenon is over. I mean the phenomenon has only resulted in developments within the show. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) (though to be fair, I'm not sure if that one is needed either). The lead really misrepresents the idea. It describes this as "a parody character", if anything it's a concept where Donald Trump is the "character" and Donald Drumpf represents Trump as he actually is. The way the segment is presented, there is no Donald J Drumpf character. Either way, it's way too similar to the other article and isn't needed. -- Scorpion0422 20:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect / Merge with Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). i don't think this article as it stands establishes Donald Drumpf as a "character" on its own; its popularity is tied directly to its progenitor television episode. Nucas (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge, clearly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and suggest rename to simply Drumpf or Drumpf (meme). This article is an interesting example of a topic taking a life of its own with the aid of Wikipedia and the media. Merging it to the Last Week Tonight episode would imply that the episode itself is more notable, which is not the case at all by this time.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). As MattMauler points out, the show did not create a character named "Donald Drumpf"; rather, it was making fun of/attacking Donald Trump himself. Non-existent characters shouldn't have articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a fictional character, nor a work of art or fiction. These kind of articles are about things that have a lasting impact. This is simply an Internet meme and a very recent one at that. This strikes me as a case of Wikipedia:Recentism, paying attention to current events more than historical ones and lacking in perspective. I doubt that there are serious, published sources on the subject that could establish its long-term notability. I also fail to see what is the point of this article. The article states that the family name "Drumpf" changed to "Trump" during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648). Potentially fascinating information for genealogists, but what this has to do with 21st politics and culture is beyond me. Some of the sources of this article simply restate that John Oliver devoted time to ridiculing the name "Drumpf" and describing how poorly it sounds to him. That is about it for the relevance of the name "Drumpf" in this meme. Everything else in the article is devoted to Oliver's verbal attacks on Donald Trump and what publicity the term is getting on Twitter. That does not particularly strike me as seriously affecting politics, culture, or popular culture. Are we expected to write a new article everytime a comedian targets Donald Trump? Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The television program that featured the topic aired on February 28, 2016, so of course there won't be any sources that "...could establish its long-term notability..." at this time. The show aired only six days ago! The topic has received coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others, which are reliable sources that are certainly "serious" and objective in their overall editorial and journalistic makeup. North America1000 14:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the segment is very notable. Why do we need two practically identical articles on it? This one should be merged into the main segment page or vice versa. Especially since this article misses the point of the whole segment (Donald Drumpf isn't meant to be a "character", it's meant to symbolize the separation of Trump the human being and Trump the reality show star). -- Scorpion0422 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect I can't believe this was put by itself it's not worthy of keeping, and not good for the Encyclopedia.Timpicerilo (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. I already merged the articles together but a Trump loving editor made the new page disappear. Someone should end this nonsense. --Potguru (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). It is a searchable term, so a redirect is clearly important. But the character concept only exists in the bounds of the LWT episode, for now. Merging it there strengthens both Drumpf and the episode's notability itself. Also, there's the slightest hint of possible BLP issues involved by treating the character out of context of the original work. If in the future the character clearly becomes more important than the episode, then we can split off, but right now, it should stay in context of the episode. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - please dear god.. .I am the original author... please delete this. Clearly it has just cause problems. IT is not worthy of name space. It has been duplicated and merged multiple times. Please, lets all give in the the Trump supporters and please please please dear god kill this page! 1 --Potguru (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !votes above, only one is allowed. Unlimited comments are allowed, but copying and pasting the same comments over and over again is disruptive. North America1000 19:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potguru has been removing reliable sources in the process of editing the article, which they have been doing constantly (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). I have asked them to refrain from doing so on their talk page (diff). The user's constant editing of the article, which they have been doing for days now, comes across as potentially trying to dumb it down to further qualify their delete !vote here. North America1000 16:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This being the internet and all, this topic is out of date... and if you want to attack me join the pile on here or here. --Potguru (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. As the original author of the article I think the subject is notable. But given the national press coverage that the article has received combined with battle that's been going on over the last few days I am perfectly willing ot merge this article with the other (about the episode of the show) and make the perfect merged page at the correctly named space here Donald J. Drumpf (Last Week Tonight) Which I did only to find out that IO cannot make a derivative article while this one is still open so let's end this silly discussion and get onto merging the articles into the correct namespace (I already did all the work... but it was blanked, redirect and then deleted as I think you already know. Just merge the articles already. (Some of your personal attack against my edits comes from this time when I cut large sections from this article and pasted them into the other attempting to end this silliness... let's just one on one article, not five yea?). --Potguru (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions typically stay open for seven days. I have stated no personal attacks toward you anywhere. Please read WP:NPA regarding what actually constitutes such content. Stop casting false WP:ASPERSIONS. North America1000 17:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note a search of only the term drumpf in google news which does not include any wikipedia mentions reaches "About 669,000 results". The term is even trademarked. --Potguru (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A) "Drumpf" is a surname that goes back more than half a millennia, so it's not surprising it returns a lot of results. B) The term is not trademarked, an application has simply been made (by the very same party with whom the joke originates, before the broadcast that brought the term to public attention was ever made). C) Even were the term covered under full trademark protection at this time, that would have absolutely no bearing on how our WP:Notability guidelines apply here. D) Aren't you presently supporting that the articles be merged so that you can move some of the content of Donald J Drumpf into Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)?
There's no point in nitpicking the comments of other editors here about content issues that won't be decided in this space. And the more times you post/repost !votes and responses to others here, the more problematic your behaviour seems and the more of an uphill task you are going to have when this AfD closes and you want to move that content (part and parcel) into another article. That seems unlikely to happen as is, but the extent of your ability to convince your fellow editors on that article to adopt at least some of that content is going to depend in part on how neutral they perceive your perspective to be. The result of this discussion is probably a forgone conclusion at this point, so I suggest you reserve your energy for preparing your WP:NPOV and WP:RS for the talk page discussion, so your arguments there on the mergable content have more traction. Snow let's rap 21:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with above. If not merge, keep it around like april fool's articles, for the sole purpose of being funny.layla 22:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The reason is that it looks more like a defamation page than anything, if one wants to refer to Donald Trump's family name origin it would be better to use sources other than John Oliver who is staunch opponent and critic of Trump thus failing to comply with WP:ORS and to include them in the historical section of articles on Trump's family. The changes in the family name is a common thing for many immigrants who came to America and I do not think it deserves to have its own page. Ralphw (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has received tremendous attention and I have no doubt that it meets the notability criterion. However, I do agree that there's considerable overlap with Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). However, I might want to point out that even though the this originated in the show, it seems to have spread pretty widely (way beyond the show's viewership), and name of the article Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) may not adequately indicative for a lot of people. Wrt merging, I would in fact recommend merging the latter article into this one. Prashant Serai (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure I would have kept it on Mar 3, but the continuing attention shows that it is more than transient. And it has indeed spread much more widely than the show -- it is often mentioned without the show in mind, just the candidate. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into separate pages for now - Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be about only 1 subject (per article), and their notable works or stuff may be mentioned. The problem here is that this article, as it is, talks about multiple subjects and is not a disambiguation page. In the first paragraph of the lead it says that it refers to a joke nickname given to Donald Trump in some TV show and in the second it says it refers to a company. Not to mention the sub-sections that all mention what "Drumpf" can refer to, and the name of the article which, at first glance, implies that the article may be a WP:BLP. --TL22 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-reading the article, I realized the things are actually related to the subject (except maybe the Drumpf company), so I've struck my vote. --TL22 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge into Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) Yes, I like John Oliver too. However, not every joke gets an article, and everything in the article can be handled in the article about the episode its based on.-- danntm T C 02:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not every joke needs an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf&oldid=1137795907"