Talk:Donald J Drumpf

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because...

This isn't in any way a hoax. I clearly wrote that this is a fictitious character, no different than Tin_Woodman and the importance of this fictitious character having achieved more interest (on google) than two real presidential candidates should suffice as demonstration of the articles importance. --Potguru (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This contested deletion claim was rescinded in favor of the current discussion here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf
 * signed Original Article Author --Potguru (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion (2)
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) This page accurately reflects the events of last Sunday with respect to the John Oliver show. In this case, deletion would suggest that the events did not happen. The page does not constitute parody, it reports, accurately, about a parody. The video feed of the show is sufficient proof that the show happened.

Bob Herrick who has lost his log in id and password from years and years ago. --63.83.74.180 (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This contested deletion claim was rescinded in favor of the current discussion here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf
 * signed Original Article Author --Potguru (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion (3)
This page should not be speedily deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because it is neither of those things. It reports a real event, noting the invention of a fictional character. It's clearly not vandalism, and I cannot see where the "hoax" label fits - who is hoaxing whom? At the very least this needs AfD not speedy, and may well survive anyway. Best wishes to all --DBaK (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Not a hoax, but an article on a real-life hoax. Willondon (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, this article should be merged into Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. That makes more sense. Willondon (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and merged the articles, not that there was actually anything to merge. epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds highly sensible. What should happen to this one - just redirect? Do we need a consensus for that? If so, I'm in. DBaK (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You should compare the text of this article with that of the other article. The text of this article is almost exactly what the other article says. There is no need to have two articles on the same thing. epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop war editing this post. There IS NOT CONSENSUS for a merge or a blank and redirect.  Please stop editing this page until there is a consensus.  These are clearly different subjects, one is about a TV Show and the other is about a parody character.  Your indictment that the two pages are identical is quite far off the mark.  Replacing the page once again.  I propose you gather consensus before acting so boldly on such a hotly contested subject. --Potguru (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, merge.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do not comment here, comment page has been moved to here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf --Potguru (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This contested deletion claim was rescinded in favor of the current discussion here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf
 * signed Original Article Author --Potguru (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletions
The above contested deletions were from a previously filed speedy deletion request that was over ruled. Right now there is a new discussion proposing this document be deleted here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf

There is a second discussion proposing the merger of the John Oliver episode article with the John Oliver series article here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight)#Merger_Proposal

Please help us sort all this out, thanks! --Potguru (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why Amazon Adviser fails as a reliable source
Regarding the revert here (edit summary: "you must have missed the third party source here: http: amazonadviser.com/2016/03/02/a-list-of-the-make-donald-drumpf-again-items-on-amazon/ ..."), Amazonadviser may be a third party source, but it is not necessarily independent. At Doesn't third party mean independent?, there is an explanation that some third parties can have a vested interest in the topic. At Independent sources, sales brochures are mentioned as a non-independent source. It should be clear that Amazonadviser is not an independent source, as its most likely purpose is to sell product. Of course, the same goes for the sources HBO Shop and Redbubble.

I expect to remove the Merchandise section again soon, unless a secondary source can be found. Perhaps a source reporting on entertainment topics that would verify the merchandise as a notable phenomenon. Willondon (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll find better sources. --Potguru (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Circular mention
Do we really need to mention that sources cite this Wikipedia article and add these sources to this article? epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are we also including a tweet that specifically tells readers to !vote "keep" on the AFD page? This is a violation of both WP:SUBJECT (self-referential) and WP:CANVASSING (telling the casual reader to !vote keep). epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed it so it addresses an "encyclopedia" so it does not violate the "self-referential" issue and it might be canvassing if one of the editors here were the parody character but there is no evidence to believe that. The character can post whatever it wants and if its posts are noteworthy our job might be to report them.  I think this is worth reporting as it, partly, demonstrates the entity is existing and (perhaps) alive and it is certainly "living" beyond the originally broadcast programming. --Potguru (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't. I remove it every time I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The two previous posters have agendas. Muboshgu is am apparent "Trump supporter" and Epicgenius made his preference for merging this article with "his" perfectly clear, then he spent most of the day trying to get this article deleted in favor of "his" on similar subject matter.  The fact remains that, even if you do not like it, this article and it's subject matter have become international news.  Clearly the article and its subject are important.  Your ongoing attempts to hide the fact that this is a noteworthy article are not welcome... go start an edit war elsewhere.  You can start by folding the episode article into the series article as the episode article created really adds very to the conversation presented in this article.  --Potguru (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not have an "agenda." It is a disservice to our readers to have two articles talking about overlapping things, when we can have one article about the entire situation. Kind of like having an article about every single one of the different characters of Divergent. We have one article for all these characters because all these characters are notable only when put together, and not by themselves. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not fair, I've never read or seen Divergent and I doubt there are any significant characters in their... certainly none as noteworthy as this. --01:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a film series. Divergent series, Insurgent (novel), Allegiant (novel), Four (novel), Divergent (film), etc. Point is, Divergent is way more notable than this, and yet we do not have an article named Tris Prior (that's the main character's name). epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, we should keep in mind that this article would not exist if the episode, or the episode's article, hadn't existed. Out of context, this subject is not notable. epicgenius (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I might agree with that if we were editing the internet wayback machine but the fact remains that, today, the parody exists. Even if all copies of the original broadcast were to magically vanish the entity who tweeted at us today is noteworthy. --Potguru (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A parody twitter account (one that was created in 2013, no less) is not noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Twitter account is only notable now because of the episode. Not vice versa. epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahaha I'm a Trump supporter??? Guess again. I understand Wikipedia policies, specifically what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may *think* you understand wikipedia policies but your ongoing interruption of the discussion where you attempt to interject to anyone supporting the article be kept is not following protocol, you are supposed to let the people speak without harassing them as you are. for example you posted: "Plenty of reasons have been presented that you're not arguing against. – Muboshgu".  Clearly that post is designed to do nothing but fight with a person who has a valid opinion that differs from yours.  --Potguru (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not harassing anyone. AfD is a place for discussion, and that's what I'm engaging in. That post was an attempt to get the person who said "no reason not to keep it at this point" to give a reason to keep it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I count four times you interjected in other people's posts in that thread. --Potguru (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I now count 6 times Moboshgu has inserted himself into other peoples comments in the thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf --Potguru (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu is merely commenting. Not canvassing, not making personal attacks, not trying to harass other editors (at least from my view). You should stop making aspersions, . epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Move?
I still think we only need the Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) article, but if we are going to have this article as well, shouldn't we at least move it to Donald J. Drumpf (with period after "J")? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't move an article that's at AfD. But I agree that if this is kept, there should be a period after the J. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the period after J should be there as well. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * fwiw I don't think anyone would object to moving this page to the "j." namespace; the argument is against merging. --Potguru (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Speedy Deletion" Pfft…
This is definitely an example of an editor more concerned with the rules (a perfect Trump voter) than needs of the popular zeitgeist (something that will keep it relevant for the rest of the year, if not the following 8 years).scooteristi (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, I've been fighting the 'haters' for two days now. The actual discussion is over here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf please join us.  --Potguru (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is obviously not notable outside the scope of the Last Week Tonight episode, when you look at it. epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * you keep saying that but we have, so far, two highly read publications talking about the actual article itself within 24 hours of its creation... which is pretty amazing in it's own right. Now there is a Drumpf Industries and a deepdrumpf twitterbot... All these things come from the parody creation... which is a real thing.  You can't deny this. It all comes from the article you created, true... but it's taken on a life of it's own.  Let the monster live, my friend.  Let's agree to stop updating the article about the episode and have you come spend all your effort here.  We need new sections about the twitterbot and the company...  The media is all over this craziness new articles appear by the minute.  see what happens next.  Let's move this forward and put our hatchets down, yea? --15:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, we can merge this into the "Legacy" section of the episode. Because this is what this article basically is about: the legacy of the episode. (Trump voters. Whaaaat? More like Trump haters.) (Yes, I am referring to myself.) And also, no, there have not been any articles about this article in the past 16 hours. The media is only "all over this" because the episode itself has had such a big impact. epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I see new Drumpf related info ALL THE TIME and that's just on google news. --02:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Redundant content
''Restoring my comment, which was removed by User:Potguru. Please do not delete the start of a discussion.''

Nearly all of the content related to the Last Week Tonight segment belongs at, or is redundant to, Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Is there content that should be removed so that this article focuses on the character and not the show? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * everything here is a direct consequence of the show, where Oliver pretty much said "Call Trump Drumpf!" You can remove pretty much everything. starship.paint ~  KO   08:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As you both well know this is not the place for a new discussion, the discussion is onfoing at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf  and the current sentiment is (contrary to your preference) appearing to be "KEEP".  So please keep the discussion over on that page, we'd hate to see this disintegrate any further.  --Potguru (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not meant to discuss article deleting or merging. This is about removing redundant content between the two articles. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redundancy can only be eliminated as the parody character grows in importance (if it does). The other article, however, has met its conclusion... nothing more can be said about the show itself and that is why that srticle should be folded into the larger article about the series.  I'm telling you, my friend, this Drumpf character has legs... this rocket is off to the moon.  --Potguru (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the "summarize" tag to this article, because the "Origin" section should only contain a summary of the LWT article and not contain redundant details. This article, if kept, should focus on the character and not the show. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you so much! (I just upload a big, ugly, pic of MR Drumpf himself. (help me resize).--Potguru (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
Can the User:Potguru explain their removal of reliably sourced explanation (Blair biography and New York Times) of 'Drumpf' to the 1600s from the Etymology section. The section that is meant to explain the name Drumpf. starship.paint ~  KO   08:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When you place it as the lead in the paragraph the paragraph makes little sense. The info you provided is real but it belongs after the presentation of John Oliver's "initial" creation of the parody.  It should go into a new section or at the end of the etymology section.  If the etymology section starts with anything other than "john oliver created..." it probably won't make sense.  The defense of why John Oliver was wrong should be in a seperate section, in my humble opinion.  I'm not opposed to the words you've represented, just where you presented them.  Thank you for your thoughtful post.  --Potguru (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth your sentiment made it to the lead paragraph which I just updated to read:
 * Donald J. Drumpf is a parody character created by the television personality John Oliver in a segment of his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, which is broadcast on the HBO television network. In the first few hours after broadcast the search term "Donald Drumpf" gained tremendous popularity. In his presentation Oliver states that Drumpf was the former name of the Trump family in the 1600s.
 * I hope you will agree that is a pretty good lead. --Potguru (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

section not currently in article --Potguru (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Drumpf really a term for Trump or a parody character?
Reading the body of this article, you wouldn't get a sense that Drumpf is a parody character. Because it's not. It's just the term Oliver are encouraging people to call Trump. The Twitter account claiming to be Drumpf is nowhere near as important as Oliver's call to rename Trump (make Donald Drumpf again). starship.paint ~  KO   08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What if the parody character owned a trademark? Or what if the trademarked name were used to describe a parody character? (I'm searching for the trademark filing now...) --Potguru (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * http://www.worldipreview.com/news/drumpf-trademark-application-filed-9643 epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we now need an article about Drumpf Industries, LLC (someone stole my new sub and blanked and redirected).
 * This namesake @DeepDrumpf just got an article in Wired.co.uk http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016-03/04/donald-drumpf-twitter-bot-ai --Potguru (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not need an article on every single thing about Drumpf, you know. Just this main article is going to be fine... if it survives AFD. The Twitterbot and the company won't survive AFD, I can almost certainly tell. epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you agree that the twitterbot deserves it's own article, yea? --Potguru (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should write an article about all 300 million Twitter users. I think they all deserve their own article, too. Heck, let's write 7 billion articles about everyone else in the world! So, no. I don't think it's a good idea. epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * oh, I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of the AI he created. The fact that it is named after the parody creator is a secondary issue.  It will have it's own page shortly... whether I make it or not.  It's from MIT, dude.. not moo state. But time will tell. (going to collect sources now). --Potguru (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Cleverbot, no social media bot is notable enough to have its own article. Twitterbot explains the more notable ones, but not a single bot has its own article. It needs to be a software to meet notability guidelines. epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this one is going to get some real coverage, being the quality of product and the given name... over 1000 references to deepdrumpf already and the first is only 15 hours old. I'm sure there will be a few credible rags that pick up the story (like wired). --Potguru (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these are passing mentions, which hardly merits an article. If we can have more details beside "it's a bot that makes fun of some foolish-sounding dude named Donald Drumpf," then fine. epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * starting new section below. --Potguru (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

DeepDrumpf
Is this noteworthy?
 * https://twitter.com/deepdrumpf
 * http://www.zdnet.com/article/donald-trump-twitterbot-has-intelligence/
 * http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/deepdrumpf-twitterbot-ai-system-impersonating-donald-trump-hilarious-effect-1547556
 * http://www.pcworld.com/article/3040645/analytics/this-wacky-twitterbot-uses-deep-learning-to-out-trump-trump.html
 * https://www.wired.de/collection/latest/das-mit-fordert-trump-mit-seinem-alter-ego-twitter-bot-deepdrumpf-heraus
 * http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/04/deepdrumpf-the-donald-trump-ai-spoof-bot-america-needs/
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/04/donald-trump-twitter-bot-tweets_n_9384330.html --Potguru (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (1): Nope. (2), (3), (4), (5), (6): tech sites. (3), (7) Probably the only non-tech sites. I'd say borderline. epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC) (Modified comment. epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC))


 * Most of the "tech sites" as described above are certainly reliable sources: ZDNet, PC World, Wired. Engadget could also be considered as potentially reliable. The International Business Times is also reliable, but it's not a "tech site". North America1000 19:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that, I am just saying that as technology sites, bullet points 2, 4, 5, and 6 put importance on the bot's existence because it has a close relation to popular culture. epicgenius (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The parody character owns a trademark? Ridiculous. DeepDrumpf deserves its own article? Good Lord. starship.paint ~  KO   23:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Somebody owns a trademark, we don't know who but John Oliver indicated it was him. The trademark was awarded to a Delaware Corp.  (This is all outside the broadcast, one of the reasons this article should stand alone). Yea DeepDrumpf is an amazing machine, I'm sorry if you think it's as simple as cleverbot.  I predict it will have it's own article soon.  --Potguru (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos
This is a bit out of control, no? The German parade float and the caricature have nothing to do with the "Drumpf" phenomenon. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It was out of control two days ago.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's right guys. The float and the drawing have nothing to do with Drumpf. Irrelevance --> remove. This is already heading towards a consensus to remove. starship.paint ~  KO   23:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken, Mlpearc. Removing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone went a little crazy with putting irrelevant, but funny nonetheless, caricatures of Donald Drumpf Dumpf  Trumpf Trump. Still, these are irrelevant caricatures. epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey come on now, you pointed me to the source epicgenius --Potguru (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I though it was clear that you should insert one image. Not three. That's just wack, man. epicgenius (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked the image I put up is still there... I was anticipating the next image... I really like those caricatures --Potguru (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos that were discussed in this section are no longer part of the article. For current photo controversy see this: Talk:Donald_J_Drumpf --Potguru (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this an attack page on Trump?
I have serious concerns about the creator of this article,. Is there a need to change that Oliver called Trump "a liar," to Serial Liar,? That's exactly what he did in the text. This is irrelevant to this page anyway, and should stay on the Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) article on the show. Furthermore, Potguru insists on including repeated references to the primary source of the Oliver video. Without secondary sources demonstrating the notability of those particular statements, this really seems to be an attack page on Trump. Just merge this, guys. starship.paint ~  KO   02:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged, I corrected the quote. Oliver does not call anyone a liar, he calls Drumpf a Serial Liar right there on the video.  You are not supposed to assume the worst about fellow editors but If I were me I'd begin to think you are just here to protect Mr Trump from further embarrassment caused by the wikipedia community as they continue to insist this is a topic worthy of a dedicated article.  I'm just here for facts, you should be too.  --02:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note Mr Starship has been harassing me for the better part of 25 hours as he and a contingent of what can only be called Trump Vigilantes attempt to quash this important stand alone article. I'm sorry you don't like the citation but int he very sentence I edited the third party quote is right there in blaring citation glory "SERIAL LIAR". I can't make this shit up, man. --Potguru (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Harassment? Good Lord. Denied. I only plead guilty to opposing your addition of unsourced, false information, and opposing your multiple copy-violating pictures which have now been deleted on en.wiki and on Commons. starship.paint ~  KO   02:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * for those who are reading challenged I've produced the artcile for you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-drumpf-john-oliver_us_56d40adee4b0bf0dab32a73c  read it and weep there fellas. --02:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In other news, Oliver's mentions of Trump's lying have already been substantiated by several sources. We don't need to add insult to injury and add "serial" on top of that, no matter how much we think it's true. epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is not about how we feel but fact reporting. The cited article states (in it's title) serial liar and so that is the term we MUST use.  --Potguru (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but still... we mentioned that Trump was lying in 75% of all statements in the article about the LWT episode. No need for redundancy. epicgenius (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether Donald Trump is a serial liar or a baby or a bullshit artist has nothing to do with Drumpf. Come on. This article is again parroting information which belongs in Oliver's segment's article and it was already there: Oliver called Trump a "serial liar," Stating that Trump has lied many times in the past Merge the articles! starship.paint ~   KO   02:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not an article about the show. It is an article about a parody or meme that was created out of the show and as I continue to demonstrate it is noteworthy and unique and most deserving of article namespace. You need to watch the video (last two minutes) to appreciate why those particular quotes belong here... they really do define what Oliver believe(d) Drumpf to be.  He stands there with a bright old school new york broadway lightshow behind hime (Drumpf's name in lights) as he reads these horrible jokes... one right after the next.  A real "mike drop" moment if you ask me. YOu can keep pitching your idea here but nobody is listening since the actual covnersation is happening over there -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf --Potguru (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new page
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) 17:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Blanked and redirected. I have no interest in further fighting the trump lovers who refuse to accept reason and logic. --Potguru (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let the AfD play out. And please refrain from casting aspersions. clpo13(talk) 19:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

mirror mirror on the wall
good source? or is the UK version of the The Enquirer?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/how-donald-trumps-fortune-founded-7503228

The article is titled: "How Donald Trump's fortune was founded by his tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa" from which I determined the grandfather's occupation of "pimp" and that he is know for being a "tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa". Is this a legitimate source or no? --Potguru (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Mirror is probably the best of the UK "red tops". It's not great, but it's not a fantasy sheet. The writing is dumber than the Daily Mail (contentious as a source in the UK) but also less biased. I would look for a better source than the Mirror, just because anything they write will be available elsewhere in a rather better version. The Mail though is simply untrustworthy for any political story, as they have too much bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

should grampa drumpf-trumpf-trump be shown?
controversy about image. Let's leave it up unless we decide, as a community, it should be removed. --Potguru (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * strong keep - did I do that right?

To put it simply, please stop behaving like a jerk. The infobox has no place in this article, especially since it is being used to mock the person (calling him a "pimp" and "tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa"). I mean, what is wrong with you? You're not being funny.--- MarshalN20 T al k 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you mean to say "strong delete". I agree the word pimp is biased, I said so when I wrote it.  I question the article mirror uk, I asked (and continue to ask) if it is citable.  They wrote the mans occupation, I did not.  So let's remove "pimp" for unknown and leave the other. --Potguru (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Occupation of man in image is now no longer Pimp. It is now "Unknown". Pending something to cite.  --Potguru (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ps. I just updated nationality as well as accurately reflected in cited references. --Potguru (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There's an article solely on this individual (Frederick Trump) where any and all discussions about his occupation, nationality, and other aspects of his life (not directly having to do with his last name) should be discussed. What is being done here is not only a WP:CONTENTFORK of sorts, but it's also presenting poorly-sourced degrading accusations about a deceased individual. None of this is related to the Drumpf meme.-- MarshalN20 T al k 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think the image of Donald's grandpa is irrelevant here. epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How can you say "irrelevant" that's hardly the right word. Is not he, the man whose image was shown in the broadcast, the man who's name change may or may not matter... a man who the newspapers cite as an owner of multiple brothels, how can you honestly suggest the image is irrelevant to the subject of Drumpf?  (I would agree if the subject of the page were the show.. but that is not the subject matter of the article).  Shall I point to the text in USWeekly where they talked specifically about the image of Trumps grandfather to demonstrate that (the public) sees the image as relevant?  Irrelevant, pft! --Potguru (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump's grandfather Some dude from Queens is not the subject of this article. The subject is the fraudulent change of surname that John Oliver discusses in this episode. That is what the article is about—the change of name from "Drumpf" to "Trump", and how that revelation is being received. epicgenius (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Votes for deletion (3 March 2016)
15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Title
Is it all right if I move this page to Donald J. Drumpf (with a period after the J)? It's used in the lede. Me, Myself &#38; I (☮) (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be all right, but then again, we currently have an AFD going on, and it's bad practice to move the page during the AFD, per WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. So you can move it, but you should be careful. epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I noticed the AFD, which is why I haven't tried moving it yet. I was planning to wait until the end and move the article if it is kept. Me, Myself &#38; I (☮) (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the article title is likely to end up being Donald J. Drumpf (Last Week Tonight). (with the period).  I already did the merge work but then the page was blanked and ultimately deleted since the AfD is not completed yet. --Potguru (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, I'm glad I asked first. I don't want to make a bigger mess for you guys. Me, Myself &#38; I (☮) (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, it's refreshing to see someone actually read the talk page before being bold. --Potguru (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)