Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 3

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.

• Merge / Redirect to
  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.
  p 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]

• Note to closer – There are also related merge discussions occurring at
  Talk:Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)
  regarding this article, which should also be taken into consideration:

• Proposed merge with Donald J Drumpf
• Merger Proposal

– 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]

@

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
  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...
  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]

• Merge/redirect to
  talk · contribs) 21:36, 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.
  canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]

• Merge / Redirect to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). It's a non-notable parody character that (somehow) became a meme and is most definitely not worthy of a page on it's own. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note - This AfD is generating some discussion on social media. Expect some SPAs to start showing up soon. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They already have. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 4 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 Popular meme. -
  talk) 03:02, 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
  ]

• Delete or Redirect Not worth keeping, trivial and not in the scope of an Encyclopedia.
  WP:Notable 172.56.12.251 (talk) 05:15, 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.
  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]

@

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]

@

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). It can be fully summed up there. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:33, 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
  ]

• Merge to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) Per above. Not a stand-alone article IMO either.   Aloha27  talk  17:27, 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]

• Merge to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) per Starship.paint and HighInBC.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:56, 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.
  talk) 18:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • +1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:53, 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
  ]

• Merge to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight): no independent notability, as this phenomenon both began on the show and largely ended there as well (trademark and commercialization by HBO). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

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
  ]

• Merge with
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). No independent notability, just a non-encyclopedic way to explain a segment on the show. Fitnr 21:49, 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]
  

• Merge with
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:26, 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
  ]

• Merge/Redirect to
  WP:COATRACK'd in. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 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
  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]

• WAS Speedy Keep: NOW Speedy Delete: - Changed Vote from SPEEDY KEEP to SPEEDY DELETE per this "Please consider abandoning this page in favor of a better named page here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Drumpf_(Last_Week_Tonight) (read it's talk page before editing)" thanks --Potguru (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep or merge--Really funny, popular culture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.168.112 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). I'm surprised this even has to be debated. Most of the delete arguments would be better directed towards an AfD for the segment article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:32, 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]

• keep I'm in the UK. Even the BBC here is talking about "Drumpf" [10] Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep needs work but is worthy of being a page. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  BLP issues if kept as its own article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:TABLOID Rentier (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  ?) czar 00:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), which was absolutely hilarious but there's no real evidence this trope has any wider currency. Guy (Help!) 01:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no encyclopedic value. Aeonx (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Absolutely textbook case of
  Wikipedia is not a repository for your shitty memes. I also dispute that Bustle is a reliable source. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment - maybe we should have the people post their political affiliation so we can gauge their bias "Wikipedia is not a repository for your shitty memes". Fortunately other editors are not so biased that they cannot see the myriad of legitimate citations for this notable recent event. --Potguru (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  notable, why are you !voting for its deletion above? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 6 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:ASPERSIONS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Very Weak Keep/Redirect to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). -Liance^{talk/contribs} 18:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• SNOW Merge to
  we can't assume that will be the case and, at present, the joke is best understood by being presented in the context of the show in which it was made. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). This seems like a sly tactic of vandalism and propaganda that will populate when doing a simple Google search for Donald Trump. DrkBlueXG (talk) 19:40, 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

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: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

]

• Delete The reason is that it looks more like a defamation page than anything, if one wants to refer to
  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
  ]
  • Comment: This was also posted to Talk:Donald J Drumpf in this edit. epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, I wasn't aware of this voting page when I created the new section on the talk page. I have voted for article deletion on talk pages before. Ralphw (talk) 23:24, 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) 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
  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. --

  talk) 02:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete/Merge into
  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]