The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
These could equally refer to other female Rodhams (Dorothy Howell Rodham exists, though a married name); bad titles per MOS:LASTNAME (see WP:NCP as well) anyhow, so they shouldn't be disambiguated (Rodham already exists). Implausible, as every notable person could potentially be referred to by these common titles (i.e. honorific prefixes).—Godsy(TALKCONT)22:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not as if she were prominent before marriage; when in the public eye, her "Rodham" has always been followed by "Clinton". It would be a thoroughly bad idea to redirect Mr X, Miss X, etc. to all X lastname disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague given that there are other female Rodhams. I'm not sure if dab or set index is okay too due to the "Ms" term in the redirects --Lenticel(talk)01:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget "Miss Rodham", "Ms. Rodham" , "Ms Rodham" to Rodham where notable people named "Rodham" are listed, and readers can choose; We have a disambiguation page, and these are ambiguous due to "Rodham", so they should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend and WP:XY. It'd be a little strange to redirect to the surname page, it doesn't address the title "Miss" there. --Tavix(talk)20:05, 3 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I considered whether the castle could be referred to as Belbury alone. Your average castle could certainly be referred to in this way, e.g., "Pontefract" for Pontefract Castle. But "Belbury Castle" may not have even been a castle, and it wouldn't've been called Belbury when it stood, certainly. So I'm skeptical. Do we know where the name came from, though? Is it a local place name? --BDD (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could be: "near Blackbury Castle and below Belbury, near Ottery St Mary"[1] is an example. I also found some mentions of another Belbury, in Dorset - "iron anchor and chain from the hill-fort of Belbury"[2] - which is now usually called Bulbury and is in Lytchett Minster and Upton. Bulbury is mentioned, but not described, in the Lytchett Minster article. Peter James (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly holding up space that should describe the place. The fictional place seems too trivial, and the other uses look like partial-title matches. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 12 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep pending other target suggestions. This is a common shorthand. Although it's possibly a misspelling of matrix I don't think we should cater to such errors when better targets exist. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retargettomatrix, for which this is a plausible mistake. I'm not seeing it as a plausible typo for "metrics" (the keys are a decent distance away) or a plausible misspelling (the words sound quite different, after all), and having an "s" on the end means that it's not likely to be used as a way of getting to Mid-Atlantic TRCI. But you could easily think "matrix" is spelled thus, especially if you've heard it but not seen it written, in a situation comparable to the existing McJagger redirect. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to my research, this is a common term in South Africa ([3], [4], [5], etc.) and it's pointing at the right place. A correct redirect should always take precedent over misspelling and typo redirects. --Tavix(talk)20:10, 3 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Upon looking at the redirect's history, this redirect was actually created in August 2015, meaning that the connection between Donald Trump and this term was known before the show made it more public. Seems to be the former surname of Donald Trump's family, so it makes sense that it redirects to where it currently targets. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: As there are multiple options and no clear primary topic, I now say that Donald Drumpf should become a disambiguation page. I have no strong opinion on whether not Donald Trump should be included on it or not, but if I were to follow my initial rationale to "keep" the redirect as it, then it should be added, maybe as a "See also" entry so that the tie is not as strong to warrant a strong BLP violation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not asking for this redirect to be deleted. I am simply pointing out that a lot of mentions of Donald Drumpf now are relating to the Last Week Tonight episode. Also, "Donald Drumpf" is a very unlikely term to search for if you are actually looking for the article on the businessman. epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Donald Drumpf" refers to Donald Trump, not just an episode of Last Week Tonight. As Steel pointed out, his ancestral name has been known for a while now, so redirecting it would be misleading. I think the best solution would be to add the "Drumpf" name and episode link somewhere in his article so there's an easy connection between the name and the episode. --Tavix(talk)15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, people searching for his ancestral name are more likely to find the John Oliver segment, thus making it an unlikely search term. epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm going to backtrack a bit. I tried to find a place to add that information to Trump's article, but couldn't find a good place. It seemed trivial in his campaign section, and his personal life section is dominated by his marriages and religion. On the other hand, The Last Week Tonight episode does do a good job of describing the name, so I'll stay neutral for now (ie: I don't care if it's kept or retargeted.) --Tavix(talk)15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this validates keeping the redirect where it targets so that readers know what this term refers to. Just because a television show popularized the term doesn't mean that the term refers to the show. As we have all in one way or another already stated during the course of this discussion, the term refers to Donald Trump. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this page is better served as being a redirect than having an editor trying to create an article with this title. LizRead!Talk!17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. I think it's very unlikely someone using this search term wouldn't actually know who Donald Trump is. Since Trump isn't actually called "Donald Drumpf" outside of this meme/campaign, I think that article will be more helpful for readers searching with this term. And of course, the actual Trump article is easily accessible from there. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, speedy retargettoDonald J Drumpf. It will probably end up merged to the episode article, which is ultimately the outcome I advocated above, but it would also leave us with the awkward situation of "Donald Drumpf" and "Donald J Drumpf" redirecting to different articles. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is far too early to suggest consensus has been reached in light of these [1][2] articles and the current postings shifting the answer toward KEEP. --Potguru (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). Mr Trump is not generally referred to as "Drumpf" except by John Oliver and his fans. Amusing as all that is, Wikipedia's job is to inform people and the article on the episode is probably the best target for doing so. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the deletion of Donald J Drumpf, Drumpf redirects to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). That's probably the right call, unless we find other people named Drumpf, in which case it should be turned into a disambiguation page. pbp18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: This discussion was prematurely closed by a non-admin on 07:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC) and is now reopened by me following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 7. Further early or non-admin closures should, in my view, be avoided. I am not undoing the now-implemented redirect change to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), because, in my view, that is an action that can be justified on editorial grounds, but remains subject to further change through the editorial process until this discussion is resolved. Sandstein 18:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget (as current edit) per all similar redirects apart from this now targeting Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). WP:RELATED seems to be relevant - a meme, show, and hname, which may be more pertinent and elegant to handle with a hatnote (or arguably doesn't even need one) at the show's article than at the top of the BLP. Widefox; talk22:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect the talk show article and retarget the Drumpf to it there.01:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC) It appears WP has become a playground for political advocacy - WP:RECENTISM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP: GNG, WP:ADVOCACY, and so on. Sad. And it's not just Drumpf or Trump or whatever - it's all of them and they are not encyclopedic. Atsme📞📧21:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Note that this is not a deletion discussion for the Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) article. This is a discussion about a redirect; and even if the information in the Last Week Tonight article is merged with Trump himself, shouldn't Drumpf redirect to the portion of the Trump article that discusses that? There really isn't any reason for the redirect to be deleted. Retargeted, maybe. pbp22:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Purplebackpack89 - I changed it. Sorry, I guess the [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] in the header threw me off. Hopefully WP editors aren't planning to make every skit on late night talk shows into articles. WP would need a building the size of the cloud to hold it all. Atsme📞📧01:00, 11 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This is misleading. The concept of a 3D Internet goes far beyond MMORPGs. "3D Internet" isn't mentioned at the article. --Tavix(talk)02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Accessing the internet in a 3D-based fashion is a broad topic. All this goes way beyond video games to include new types of web browsing, new ways to experience news reports, new ways to simulate visiting distant locations, and a wide variety of such things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If I were to think of a "3D Internet", something like WebGL or the (thankfully) almost forgotten VRML (Virtual Reality Modelling Language) would be better targets than MMORPGs. But neither WebGL nor VRML are really "3D Internet"—they are web technologies for displaying 3D content (one current, one thankfully abandoned). The Internet is, as the Senator famously said, a series of tubes. The protocols that run on it may contain 3D content. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a 3D Internet as opposed to a 2D Internet. It is just a way of getting TCP/IP packets around. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 4 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy retarget - sometimes the bots aren't as smart as we'd like them to be. I've gone ahead and retargeted as obviously the right thing to do, and I have something else to do right now but if nobody beats me to it I will close this later today. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, this should be deleted. The show was never actually known as The Newsroom (or at least I can't find a source that says that), it was simply at one point referred to as an untitled newsroom comedy. Ivanvector🍁 (talk)
I didn't meant to say that the series was earlier known as Newsroom. I meant to say that the series was a newsroom drama. I earlier knew that the series was untitled. So I created the article with the title Newsroom, since it was a newsroom drama. When the title of the series was final as Reporters, then I moved the Newsroom article to Reporters. Now I don't know why the bot redirected NewsroomtoSony Entertainment Television (India). Mr.SmartℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 04:30, 3 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 12#Criteria and indicators
