Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump and handshakes (2nd nomination)

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 delete. We appear to have reached the point where further discussion will not lead to any greater enlightenment. There are valid arguments on both sides and most participants have conducted themselves honourably. This boils down to the recurring debate about what makes an appropriate encyclopaedic subject—should we have an article on every subject that meets our agreed notability criteria (ie that which receives sufficient coverage in independent sources), or should we wait until the subject can demonstrate lasting significance. Except in this case we have the added complication that the subject is a living person (and thus the article is subject to BLP policy) and quite possibly the most notable person in the world at the present time, complete with the drama that accompanies anything related to an incumbent American president and this president in particular.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump's handshake has been the subject of sufficient coverage to satisfy our notability criteria, so the question is essentially whether this is an appropriate subject for an encyclopaedia, now or in the future. Opinion on that is split roughly evenly. Many participants honestly believe that this is an entirely appropriate article or that there is nothing wrong with it that cannot be fixed through the normal editing process and that the existing coverage is sufficient to establish its lasting significance; others that it is too early to tell the lasting impact of Donald Trump's handshake, that the article is politically motivated and slanted, that it falls afoul of our policy on coverage of living persons, or that it unduly focuses on a negative aspect of a broader topic (in this case Donald Trump and his presidency).

I am closing this discussion as delete on the grounds that the consensus is split and BLP concerns in particular take primacy over notability. It may be appropriate to revisit the subject in a few months to determine whether it can sustain its own policy-compliant article or whether the coverage has petered out. In the meantime, I explicitly do not object to a partial merge and redirect to an appropriate broader article, and I will be happy to make the deleted text available to any editor in good standing wishing to perform such a merge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and handshakes (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)

Same reason as the previous AFD, which was closed due to PILEOFSKCRIT#6. KMF (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: Nom should have linked to the first AFD (prior to the name change): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's handshakes. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @KATMAKROFAN: Please spell out policy-based reasons for deletion. All I see on the previous listing is "Politically biased. Not in compliance with WP:NPOV." but those are reasons for cleanup, not reasons for deletion. Zero^talk 01:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Trump's handshakes have been covered extensively and persistently by reliable sources around the globe, in the context of the traditionally-perceived masculinity of the greeting as well as the political ramifications of his aggressive handshaking. The depth & breadth of coverage cannot be waved away by "it's trivia!" arguments, nor the borderline infantile nominator's rationale provided here. TheValeyard (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While there may be some problems with the article, it passes the general notability guideline, as there has been much coverage of the subject. Furthermore, as Zero wrote, no reason for deletion is actually mentioned, just NPOV concerns. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 01:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Violates WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively [...] This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. [...] BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.". Words such as "awkward" and "bizarre" and expressions such as "yank[ed] the judge towards him as if he were a pet dog on a leash" do not reflect a conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and dispassionately written article. It should be noted that not everything published in a reliable source automatically lacks bias; WP:NEWSORG states this clearly: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. [...] Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." --William Case Morris (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP also says: "Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion." I sure hope that notability isn't being questioned here, because that's very covered. It further says: "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." The page is also very sourced. I think that your BLP concerns should be taken up at the Talk page, not in a deletion discussion. --Hameltion (talk, contribs)

  Is your BLP concern strictly the expressive language used by the authors of the cited sources? I ask because the BLP policy says,

  Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort.

  I would disagree that "the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". If the sources use expressive language (or perhaps language with which you disagree), that's not a detriment to the article's quality. The article is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is "substantially of poor quality". The very premise of the article is to disparage Donald Trump's handshakes. Taking that into account, I do not believe it can be improved, nor do I believe it should be kept. --William Case Morris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Presidency of Donald Trump or Donald Trump in popular culture. His handshakes (or lack thereof) might be notable but not sufficiently enough for their own article. Much like Donald Trump's hair redirects to a section in Donald Trump in popular culture, I think the handshakes could be a similar case. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Donald Trump in popular culture, to a new section called "Handshakes". As NoMoreHeroes points out, that's exactly how we solved the earlier problem of the article Donald Trump's hair. It's the same problem: Delete isn't really an option because of the amount of coverage. But Keep as a standalone article isn't really an option IMO either, because the subject is just inherently trivial, almost silly for an encyclopedia. It makes Wikipedia a laughingstock to call this a subject for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, this is almost a one-event situation: the vast majority of the coverage (and more than half of the article's current content) was about Macron. That's why it was created in July: because of all the coverage that month about him and Macron. Easy solution to this problem: Put it into Donald Trump in popular culture where it belongs. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the events that occur in encounters between the heads of state of major countries are something that fits very well into "popular culture". I also think there is too much material on this topic to fit it into some other article without having undue weight in that context. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - content POV fork where some of the cited RS are political pundits pretending to be psychologists. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)^{correction 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

  As you're advocating deletion, I assume that when you said "content fork" by way of an explanation, you meant to claim that it's a redundant content fork. Can you point us to the article from which this content was forked? Furthermore, the content forking guideline says that "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for pointing that out - meant to say POV fork. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Violates all three of WP:BLP (See NoMoreHeroes' comment), WP:NPOV (see main article talk page; also shows article isn't suited for Wikipedia as is) and most importantly WP:Notability (A topic like this does not need or deserve a Wikipedia article). Unlike Trump's Hair, which has notability (it is iconic and even has a song named after it), there is nothing noteworthy about the way he shakes hands with people. Spilia4 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) The biographies of living persons policy is a 190 kB page. Since NoMoreHeroes (talk · contribs) didn't mention that policy, can you point us to specifically which aspect the article violates? (2) Not only has the NPOV discussion you referenced been closed, but when I specifically asked you, "Where specifically does the article express an unbidden editorial opinion? What specific prose uses biased language that's not derived from a cited relible source?", I received no answer. Can you use this opportunity to answer that question as it relates to an NPOV violation? (3) The notability guideline says, in a nutshell, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." The article cites 31 reliable sources published over the span of 160 days—68.97% of President Trump's time in office. How doesn't the article meet the guideline? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm reluctant to !vote delete because this is the third time this has been to AfD in three months, but the first one ended in no contest and the second was a procedural close. The problems laid out in the first AfD were never addressed, likely because they can't be... this is frankly an absurd subject. I don't think it even deserves a section on Donald Trump in popular culture, Donald Trump's hair was a topic of conversation years before he launched his presidential bid. Almost all of these sources address one handshake, with Macron, WP:NOTNEWS applies.LM2000 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The first discussion was closed as no consensus after the nominator changed their mind and advocated for keeping the article. Absurdity isn't a reason for deletion. Only 45.16% of the sources only cover the Macron handshake; 51.61% discuss either other handshakes as well, other handshakes altogether, or simply the president's handshaking propensities. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, that this article makes us look silly should not be taken into account, but it is true nonetheless. Other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS (which I cited above), and most importantly, WP:GNG, are real factors though. If you consider the Macron shake an event, WP:EVENT applies since sources 9-30 deal mostly with that, and by your admission half of the sources solely dedicate themselves to that "event".LM2000 (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, among others. In particular, from the general notability guideline: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] An in-depth analysis of Trump's handshakes is trivial fluff, which at most merits a section of a more general article, and certainly not its own article. Arguments in favor rest on reliable sources, and I quote again: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sadly, mainstream media outlets have proven themselves to be lacking in integrity in regards to President Trump, for which there are countless examples from the election to the present. On this particular topic, having several news sources is no guarantee of notability. Bigdan201 (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic has great notability per the WP:GNG and was featured on the main page just the other day without any problem. The nomination is devoid of any policy-based argument and the page has already survived a previous AfD so there's no case to answer here. Donald Trump in popular culture is not an appropriate merge target because that title conventionally relates to appearances in fictional circumstances such as the Simpsons, while this is real-world history in the making. If we were to merge it anywhere it would have to be into the main article about Donald Trump where it certainly merits a mention but it's usual for major figures such as US Presidents to have numerous spin-off articles like this. Deletion is out of the question and would be contrary to policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  To "without any problem", read Talk:Donald Trump and handshakes. We currently have a section on his hair on the popular culture article, which, whilst not "real-world history in the making", certainly isn't fictional. Also, given no one here is opposed to there existing mention in other articles of coverage on his handshakes, I don't see how this would be contrary to WP:CENSOR. --Inops (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How does this contribute to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip news website, therefore articles must have some sort of significance. Just because something is well covered on the news, doesn't mean we should start randomly creating articles for them, regardless how ridiculous it may be. Saltn'Pepper (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (slightly over Merge) - This article doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria for a stand alone article at WP:N including WP:GNG. Having RS or coverage alone is not enough to merit an article. The article must also pass What Wikipedia is not. This article doesn't come close to passing WP:NOT on several levels, most notably WP:NOTEVERYTHING (aka: Encyclopedic content), WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTNEWS. IMO DT's handshake has a relatively short news cycle and is doubtful this will be in the "Top 20 of most notable things about Donald Trump". Although I agree the merge comments to Donald Trump in popular culture are valid as well, I don't feel that it is on the same level as some of the other topics in that article. CBS527^Talk 14:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or Merge) - Doesn't meet WP:N. Tabloid stuff -- no place in an encyclopedia. --Inops (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article has already faced a nomination for deletion from this user and survived. Certain users will never cease in nominating this article for deletion until they get what they want. This is not healthy behavior for users. Sleyece (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The first nom was a no consensus technical close which probably should have been closed as delete because quite a few editors believe it's noncompliant with policy or that it's needless trivia or just plain unencyclopedic per WP:NOT but then, the latter makes it noncompliant with policy. Consensus should not overrule policy which may explain why we're here again. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no evidence that your personal opinions on the matter equate to site wide policy. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The first discussion was only closed because it was linked on the front page, as policy states that you can't nominate an article for deletion while it's on the front page. It was a technicality which should not be taken as support for the article. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the SECOND discussion (earlier this week) that was closed proceduraly because it was open at the same time as the article's DYK appearance on the front page. The earlier discussion was closed as "no consensus" - which is not quite the same as "surviving" AfD. We have never had a community consensus about what to do with this article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, the 1st was closed as no consensus, the 2nd was closed as a technicality, and this is the 3rd? Hope we're not setting a trend for presidential trivia which means editors can update all the past articles on presidents with trivia, like selfies with blonde prime ministers, victory signs while boarding planes, tripping and needing assistance to get into planes and cars, throwing up on diplomats, entertaining interns, and so forth. 🤣 Now that looks like fun. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this article made it onto the DYK section of the front page to begin with is outrageous and causes me to question the neutrality and integrity of the of DYK section. Maybe it's time for some new people to run it for a while (no I don't want the job). Eric Cable  !  Talk  05:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that DYK promotes good articles to the front. It's a shame some users attack based on political opinions. Sleyece (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that unlike TFA, WP:DYK merely promotes articles that have been recently created or expanded and may be interesting to readers. More explanation of the criteria and process is found at WP:DYK. They aren't necessarily especially good articles, although they would generally survive a deletion discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - On fence of clean up or merger. This style handshake is not "unusual" as the opening statement suggests, men do it all the time as a show of dominance, and to say there is something wrong or unnatural about it is an opinion. Trump has always shook hands like this, and plenty of other Presidents shook hands like this too. This in itself makes it not notable. The Psycologist quotes in this article were the only un-bias sources (besides first hand accounts). They state his handshakes are simply a stretegic power grab. The quotes in the rest of the article are from editors and journalists who by themselves have no credibility on the subject. Those opinions should be removed. All the "Media Organization Reported:" should also be removed, Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. I agree with above, if Trumps Hair doesn't have an article this shouldn't. (Reiterated below) Obama's Tan Suit doesnt have a page because "It was talked about". Everybody is going to talk about anything Trump does because he is President, that doesn't mean every conversation about him in the media should be labeled "Notable". PartyPresident (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "If Trumps Hair doesn't have an article this shouldn't": Actually the only reason Donald Trump's hair doesn't have an article is because it was converted to a redirect to Donald Trump in popular culture. Since you compared them, would you accept a comparable treatment of this subject? --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN Trump's handshakes were not notable until after he became President. If there are a few examples of his handshakes being notable in popular culture before he became/ran for President then I would agree it should be merged. I stand on delete until there is a clean up of the article. PartyPresident (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, maybe certain parts being included on or merged into the Donald Trump page might work, but overall, it isn't needed, due to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTNEWS. Like a couple others have said, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper; it's such a small topic, I really don't think it deserves a page for itself, and there's a slim chance it would be notable enough to include on Trump's page anyway. Topper13009 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In replying to LM2000 (talk · contribs) here, I went through all of the available sources in the article. Many of them discussed other, related, topics such as President Trump's breaches of diplomatic protocol, his faux pas as president, his ignorance of or disregard for social decorum when interacting on the international stage, and other breaches of the expectations of heads of state. There could be more reliable sources discussing such. To satisfy parties, could an article of—way off the top of my head—perceived unpresidentiality of Donald Trump be created that would encompass all of these aspects and more if they develop? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@fourthords - I don't think that article would pass NPOV or Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. I think the article could stay the same but it would need a cleanup and renamed to something about Trump's masculine handshakes. The article subjectively states there is something 'unusual' about these handshakes, which is not true. LBJ and other presidents and world leaders throughout history have used similar intimidation tactics, there could be an article titled "Presidents and Intimidation tactics.", or something along those lines. ...But after reading into this subject more, I'm starting to realize this is really about his perceived sexism as he inherently doesn't do this style handshake to women because it is a strictly male dominance 'ritual' for lack of a better word. If this is true, this means the entire premise of the article violates NPOV. We are not creating an article about 'Sexist Donald Trump' just as we are not going to create an article about 'Alpha Male Donald Trump'. - PartyPresident (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is routine coverage of interactions between world leaders that is not newsworthy and encyclopedic. How world leaders walk, talk and shake hands is the subject of routine speculation. See for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/vladimir-putin-killer-genius-kleptocrat-spy-myths Theory 3 discussed in this article about Putin, that his gait allegedly indicates a stroke in utero. We aren't going to include an article on Vladimir Putin's Gait. This is the same level of routine coverage. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can find 31 reasonably reliable sources that discuss Putin's gait, and I don't think his gait has been the topic of commentary from a significant number of world leaders. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to WP:N. I wouldn't understand why something like "Donald Trump and handshakes" is such an important topic to be housed on this site. H.C.P. (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically its sections WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Having an article for something as routine and superfluous as this quite frankly is fucking ridiculous regardless of who the subjects involved are. We are not supposed to be Trump-opedia either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The topic has been covered with very extensive commentary in a large number of high-quality reliable sources, and several world leaders have discussed the subject extensively, including Mr. Trump himself. There are 31 citations in the current article, and practically none of them are tabloid junk sources. I don't personally see a lot of clear bias in the current phrasing of the article (and the opinionated expressions that are found within it are generally found only within quotation marks). The topic doesn't consist of just one or two incidents (and even if it did, there is lasting notability in some such things, such as the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, the George H. W. Bush vomiting incident, Gerald Ford stumbling, Dan Quayle misspelling "potato", the Dick Cheney hunting incident, the Bill Clinton haircut incident, etc.). There is too much material on the subject to splice it into a brief paragraph in some other article without producing undue weight there. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof This article has a clear bias. Its real name, judging by the opening statement, is "Donald Trump and his unusual handshakes". Trumps handshakes are perfectly normal, as most of the sources in the article state. It is a masculine power grab, plenty of Presidents have done it before. (See LBJ's handshake). Infact, LBJ was well known for his intimidation tactics like Peeing on the Secret Service, spitting and belching in peoples personal bubbles, or Bringing people into the bathroom with him while he lays a stinker, yet I don't see an article about that and it is well covered. Maybe this could be merged into a "Presidential Intimidation" article? The Handshake comes with the Precidency not 'Unusual Donald Trump', as the article suggests. PartyPresident (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misquoted the opening of the article. Your quoted phrase saying "Donald Trump and his unusual handshakes" does not appear anywhere in the article (much less in its opening sentence), and as far as I know it never did. That's just a false straw man. You also failed to note that the next sentence provides further context in the form of the explanation that Mr. Trump is "a self-described 'germophobe', [who] once said handshaking was 'barbaric' and avoided the practice". Your other quoted phrase saying 'Unusual Donald Trump' also does not appear in the article. Please try to criticize what is actually in the article, not things you make up yourself. Yes, LBJ's handshakes were famous. In fact a week or so ago I looked for where I could find a description of LBJ's handshakes on Wikipedia so I could link it to the article about Trump's handshakes. I thought it would be a relevant addition. Unfortunately, I did not find anything, so I gave up. I would encourage you to add something about that. Unfortunately, Mr. Johnson lived in the pre-Internet age, which is generally less well documented on Wikipedia than what has happened more recently. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof I did not "misquote" the opening of the article, I paraphrased. The way the article is currently titled is "Donald Trump and handshakes". The opening statement says "Donald Trump has had an unusual approach to the practice of handshaking", which infers the title of the article is "Donald Trump and (his unusual approach to the practice) of Handshakes", a paraphrase of the opening statement. The title should be something like "Donald Trump's Masculine Handshakes", which is not subjective. Your "Pre-Internet Age" comment is one of the many reasons why 'Wikipedia is not a Newspaper' exists. I believe the article may have some merit to exist, but it has many problems, and I see people in this discussion actively working to ignore these problems, pretending to have cognitive disonence, projecting, putting up strawmen etc, so my vote stays with delete until there is a real discussion. PartyPresident (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing (especially when the accuracy of the paraphrase is disputable) is something that should generally not be done using quotation marks. When quotation marks are used around something, it should be a copy, not a paraphrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I had not previously noticed the "real name" part of your comment, which does provide a hint that the quote is not really a quote. I apologize for missing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof Please stop making up random facts about quotations marks and paraphrasing, I did nothing wrong. Anyway, the right thing to do now is to stick to the topic at hand: There are actual problems in the article (as stated above) and they need to be acknowleged. One thing I forgot to mention earlier is that germophobia is much like masculine handshakes in the fact that they are not notable. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some things that wouldn't be notable if they were traits of your next-door neighbor are notable if they are traits of the President of the United States. Wikipedia generally measures notability in terms of the amount of coverage received in independent reliable sources, and this article easily meets that test. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof Sources are not reliable in themselves. Any 'Media Outlet Reported:X' needs to be removed or properly quoted. The first two paragraphs under 'analysis' is all just punditry from journalists and editors who have no credibility on the subject, It isn't until the very end of the 2nd paragraph that there are quotes from credible sources like phsycologists and body langauge experts. The 3rd paragraph is very much the same, with more opinion then there is actual analysis. Maybe if there were protests, petitions, or merchandise. Something signifigant. All I see is just corporate news media hype sources, which inherently points us to > Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PartyPresident (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete otherwise all of Wikipedia's Neutrality rules will basically be thrown out the window in my opinion. If someone were to create an article titled "The Narcissistic Behavior of Barack Obama" with a bunch of links to Fox News, Breitbart, and The National Review the article would get deleted within five minutes, would have NEVER made it to the home page, and the person who created it would probably get banned. Eric Cable  !  Talk  05:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's clearly a "straw man" argument. "Narcissistic behavior" is a clearly POV title. There's nothing inherently POV about "Donald Trump and handshakes", and the citations are to sources that are generally considered reliable, unlike "Fox News, Breitbart, and The National Review". —BarrelProof (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BarrelProof: Try creating Allegations of narcissism made against Barack Obama. I'm sure you can find enough reliable sources, including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, along with the publications mentioned above. --Andreas JN466 13:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another straw man. This article isn't about allegations or rumors. It is about factual matters – events that occurred that involved world leaders, and statements made about those things by the POTUS and the other world leaders involved in those events. It is not an inherently POV topic, and is a topic that has attracted plenty of reliable sources (not just junk sources with obvious bias). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject is of some limited interest and deserves a small mention somewhere, but it does not warrant its own full page. Cpaaoi (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable due to weight of reliable third-party sources globally. The fact that this made it to the main page as a DYK shows that many editors see it as a notable topic, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was subjected to 2 deletion discussions and survived. It also has plenty of 3rd party sources and is a notable topic in the media, even though they are pushing a POV subject.F2Milk (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this subject has significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Most of the "delete" votes above fail to articulate a policy-based reason for deletion, and should be discounted appropriately. Neutrality^talk 04:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "U.S. President Donald Trump has had an unusual approach to the practice of handshaking." So what? 1. Unencyclopedic 2. Not noteworthy 3. Recent-ist 4. (vaguely) Trump bashing--Chanaka L (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Jdcomix (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the best rationale to keep is it survived the first AfD, the closer is going to have an incredibly easy decision to make. This is an article created as a consequence of WP:RECENTISM and is a fine example of WP:NOTNEWS.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally see the NOTNEWS and RECENTISM arguments. This isn't an article about an ephemeral pop song. People still extensively discuss and write about LBJ's handshakes after 50 years have gone by – e.g., in The Passage of Power (2012) – and they will certainly still be interested in Mr. Trump's handshakes (as well as LBJ's) in another 50 years. Mr. Trump will probably have shaken many more hands by then, and the article may be longer, but the topic is already highly notable and it will remain so. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof - "...they will certainly still be interested in Mr. Trump's handshakes (as well as LBJ's) in another 50 years. Mr. Trump will probably have shaken many more hands by then, and the article may be longer, but the topic is already highly notable and it will remain so". Does your WP:CRYSTALBALL see 50 years into the future? LBJ's art of negotiating was/is analyzed in historical sources, as you demonstrated, not 109 newspapers. Perhaps if Mr. Trump's art of the deal (pun intended) is analyzed in a similar way, including his handshakes, it can be the subject of an encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Speaking as a non-American, this article strikes me as hilariously trivial. I consider myself fairly well informed, and this is the first time I have read anything about Donald Trump's handshakes. I don't think this is anywhere near notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. — JFG ^talk 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every government in every country in the world has or will have a memo on Donald Trump's handshakes. That fact alone makes this an important article. It is also widely covered in all the most high-brow media outlets. The comment that struck me most from the first AFD was DrFleischman's observation that this is a lot less trivial than "minutiae of videogames and obscure television characters",[1] on which many articles are written. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Every government in every country in the world has or will have a memo on Donald Trump's handshakes. ^{[citation needed]}, if you're going to use that as part of your rationale. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know. José Luiz ^talk 01:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, reads like tabloid entry. Mr. Anon515 02:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- this is not just one event, but the coverage has stretched over months. The "events" themselves involve world leaders, Supreme Court nominees, FBI directors, etc. Unlike Trump orb, not just part of popular culture, but of politics as well. Meets WP:SIGCOV per review of available sources. This is probably 0.1 in Trump orbs (an article on which still exists, damn it!) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are enough incidents and coverage of them that we really do need an article to cover this. Delete votes alleging that this is partisan and built from leftwing sources need to be aware that the UK's Daily Telegraph is a very conservative publication while the Independent is both reliable and neutral. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because oh my goodness do I have to give a reason? Media prattle and pop psychology handwaving from journalists obsessed with everything Trump does is not encyclopedic material. Famous_dog (c) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge at minimum. The amount of coverage this one topic has got is substantial and widely known. It's cruft but its notable cruft. Seddon ^talk 12:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge. ed g2s • talk 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it makes no sense to effectively ban the Daily Mail and then try to imitate it. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-sourced, topic discussed in numerous mainstream media outlets. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does not necessarily entail notability. WP:GNG is clear: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. Nor does it grant a free pass for everything that WP:BLP states we should avoid. --William Case Morris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well-sourced, well-developed topic. IMHO it's as encyclopedic as Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. --Yone Fernandes (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. By peers. Some editors don't accept a keep for one time. --Webysther (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The first AFD was closed as no consensus; the second was closed because the article was on the front page at the time. --William Case Morris (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Still delete until there are fixes to the subjective parts of this article mentioned above, but am willing to make the edits. Not currently doing the edits because don't want to look like vandal. It would be good to come to a consensus but it seems every time I point out obvious errors the conversation stops. Thanks PartyPresident (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: The topic clearly and unambiguously meets the GNG. It has been covered in detail in multiple reliable sources. There's so much WP:IDONTLIKEIT here that it would make your head spin. I don't see how this is even a debate. --Slashme (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason to delete is not "we don't like it". Its that wikipedia is about encyclopedic topics, not the news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant policy here. That is the point of the conversation that anyone supporting Keep needs to address. To quote from the policy "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". This is routine coverage of interaction between world leaders that lacks enduring notability, at least so far. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the "Keep" votes consistently told why their vote is wrong? This is not a forum to intimidate a consensus. Sleyece (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's are discussions. The purpose of this is to come to a community consensus, which means discussing and debating the relevancy of content and the application of Wikipedia policies. This is not a raw vote count, so there is no question of "intimidating a consensus" through contesting certain claims and points. Mr. Anon515 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same is not true for "delete" votes. They vote, sometimes list a policy to back up their reason, and that is the end of it. When a user votes "keep", they are being treated as some kind of traitor to the delete consensus Sleyece (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to respond to any disputable claims or stances made by users supporting delete. This is meant to be a community discussion, not a strawpoll or battleground. Responding to specific points and claims by other users is not some kind of intimidation. See WP:SOAP. Mr. Anon515 04:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it more as 'Keep' votes ignoring 'Delete' votes so they can close this like the first time on 'No Consensus'. When 'Delete' votes respond to 'Keep' votes to stir up a discussion you accuse us of 'intimidation'. I have said it before and I'll say it again, it is clear 'Keep' votes are trying to ignore actual discussion about the article itself. I and others have pointed out numerous flaws in the article that I am not going to repeat as I just get ignored. Thanks. PartyPresident (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, it's this kind of polarized rhetoric that worries me. We aren't discussing something incredibly consequential, at least not in the grander scheme, but some people on here want to devolve us to a base identity. We are not "Keeps" and "Deletes". We are Users. @PartyPresident:, this is not some awkward arena to air your political frustrations. This is a discussion about the relevance of an article. I don't understand how it became some toxic. Sleyece (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know we are all smarter than this, Sleyece. You can scroll up and find the subjective flaws in the article I've stated numerous times in this discussion(only to be ignored) or I could repost them for you. The best thing to do right now is actually talk about the problems within the article that need to be addressed and have a civil discussion so we all can come to a general consensus. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleyece, I don't think it is fair to accuse one particular side of intimidating the other. Out of the 18 votes that have been replied to thus far, seven are keep votes, one is a merge vote, two are delete/merge votes, and eight are delete votes; I'm not counting the two delete votes by IP addresses below, because the replies are unrelated to their reasoning. As you can see, it is not true that "keep votes [are] consistently told why their vote is wrong". --William Case Morris (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Case Morris, you can be right. I don't care anymore. I have proposed a compromise slightly further down the page. Sleyece (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons already mentioned by other users. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is not a new comment. It was deleted and reposted, here, below the relisted line. Sleyece (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After they were removed without explanation in this revision https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump_and_handshakes_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=800750024. @Seddon:, removing the voices of users in a deletion discussion is wrong, and that includes IP users. Please stop. I am restoring the other removed comment now. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete embarassingly stupid, trivial and uncyclopedic.93.36.191.55 (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was restored after being removed without explanation by a user. Please do not remove the comments of others in this discussion, to ensure everyone can be heard and we can have a constructive deliberation. Thank you. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge This is an encyclopedia. Are we going to create an article on Trump's speaking ability? Which is terrific by the way. Terrifc. The best. He uses all the best words.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well now, that idea may have merit. Articulation of Donald Trump, perhaps? Quartz, Rhetoric scholars pinpoint why Trump’s inarticulate speaking style is so persuasive, Vanity Fair, Experts: Trump's Speaking Style “Raises Questions about his Brain Health”, Boston Globe, Trump’s speaking style still flummoxes linguists Trump’s speaking style still flummoxes linguists. When multiple reliable sources cover a subject, the subject is generally deemed notable. It is a shame that some old-fashioned "what the Wikipedia should be" is swaying this debate. TheValeyard (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the idea has some potential to add good content to Wikipedia. I don't know if "Articulation of Donald Trump" is an apt enough title. It's the peculiar way he incorporates marketing into his mannerisms that seems to be notable. The topic is also heavily referenced in both news and pop culture. It has potential. Sleyece (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IAR. There's no reason for a stand-alone article here. The topic can be discussed on Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q1 and Q2, but neither a merge nor a redirect would be beneficial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand, this is obviously a sub-page of Donald Trump, so I don't think the emphasis on notability in many of the comments is the least bit useful. The Trump biography is too long to discuss this directly, but as I note above, there are plenty of other pages on Trump that can address this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge. Rather than an encyclopedia article, this is a thinly disguised, gleeful but petty hit piece that does Wikipedia and thoughtful criticism of Trump no favours. I can understand the glee – it's one way to get back at the man, and is enjoyed as such by those horrified by his presidency. But in my view it harms Wikipedia instead of Trump: no one who likes Trump will change their mind because of an article like this, but they may well conclude – with some justification – that Wikipedia's neutrality pledge is just window dressing. --Andreas JN466 13:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear!! Thank you Andreas. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am willing to change my "Strong Keep" vote to a "Merge" if there is some hope for a consensus there. Sleyece (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think that's a fair compromise, because even though this article can stand on its own (GNG), it is difficult to keep it neutral without further context. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm of the mind that we could get away with mentioning something in his BLP about his handshake - perhaps along the line that he has a bold and assertive handshake that has garnered attention from mainstream media, and created speculation that some recipients were intimidated by it, or chose their own greeting custom in lieu of it, or something along that line. That's about the extent of deserved encyclopedic mention regarding such a trivial matter from a NPOV/UNDUE perspective. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as trivia. There were more sources for the deleted trivia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One distinction here is that Mr. Trump is the President of the United States and his handshakes are a part of his political interactions with other world leaders, whereas Mrs. Obama is essentially just a celebrity. AFAIK, she had no official governmental role. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One serious issue with this article, in addition to NPOV and WP:NOT is that it currently violates the manual of style on quotations. First of all the Notable handshakes section has many quotes that are not attributed in the main text (see Attribution section). Second it just has a lot of them. As the essay guidelines on quoting puts it "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful" (see WP:QUOTE). I think that's precisely what's happened here. MOS:QUOTE is rather more succinct on this topic, but says " It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement.". This is important if we are to consider various proposals to merge this article. Any of it that is carried over to elsewhere will need to be MOS compliant, or it will reduce the quality of the target. The article's current text is not MOS compliant, so as it is right now I favor delete over merge. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the very definition of WP:NOT. Not encyclopedic, trivial, tabloid news topic. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Obscurantism: "Obscurantism is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts of some subject matter from becoming known" and it is the, you know, opposite of what we are trying to do here. I mean, here you have:

1) A clearly notable phenomenon.

2) With many refs in many high-end, high-circulation, notable and reliable sources. The existence of these refs proves that the phenomenon is notable, regardless of anyone's person opinion on whether they wish it wasn't notable or whether this is the sort of article that they, personally, like to read, or whatnot.

3) With 22,075 views in the last month. So I mean people are interested in the subject.

Since the days of Nupedia the basic construct is that if you have a subject that some reasonable number of people are interested in and you have the refs to write a decent article, then do so.

And wait. This isn't about whether we should create an article on this topic. The article already exists and the only question is whether to throw it down the memory hole. What are we supposed to tell those 22,075 people? "We had an article on this subject but you know what? We decided you shouldn't know about stuff like this, so we deleted it! Sucks to be you! But Google is thataway and good luck! Hope you have some time on your hands!" I'm not for that attitude, to be honest.

So then you have people citing an alphabet soup of various hidebound regulations, not understanding that we are an encyclopedia and not the Department of Motor Vehicles. For instance, you have people citing WP:NOTNEWS. Do they understand what WP:NOTNEWS is about? Of course they don't. They haven't read it. And if they have read it, they haven't understood it, which is even worse.

NOTNEWS is for this: Suppose you wake up and see across the river a major fire engulfing many factories and neighborhoods including the state capitol and so forth. Notable fire, clearly. Should you immediately post a Wikipedia article about the fire -- "The Great Omaha Fire occurred on September 18, 2017. Flames engulfed several blocks..."? Well of course you shouldn't. For one thing your ref would be "I saw it with my own eyes". You have to wait a little while for actual news reports to be broadcast and posted, and then you write the article citing these reports as your refs.

WP:NOTNEWS bullet 1: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" and it designed to prohibit your eyewitness report as described above.

WP:NOTNEWS bullet 2: "Routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". In other words "Tom Hanks was seen leaving Paris Hilton's party on July 18, 2015." "Joe Shlabotnik went three for four with 3 RBI on August 4, 2016." "On October 4, 19997, American Veeblefetzer announced stable profits for the previous quarter." Those are routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. See the difference between that and this article? If not, you are excused from the conversation.

WP:NOTNEWS bullet 3: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." This statement is entirely about whether an individual is notable, and refers the reader to WP:BLP. In other words, a plane crash is notable; the individuals on the plane are not notable and should not get articles. If you're asserting that Donald Trump is not notable and should have an article, say so. And good luck with that.

WP:NOTNEWS bullet 4: We are not a diary. "Donald Trump played a round of 18 holes on July 14, 2017, and then had a dinner of steak tatare and green beans. He wore a brown suit." See the difference between that and this article?

In other words, RTFR: Read The Rule. If you can't be assed to do so, why are you citing it? This is getting annoying and destructive. Stop it. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to quote "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia" in bullet 4. And you must have been aware, before you wrote your screed, that most of those page views were due to the fact that the article was manoeuvred onto the main page. On the days before, it was single or low double figures. That reflects actual interest in this as an encyclopedic topic, rather than a stunt. --Andreas JN466 09:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Herostratus, your long commentary above doesn't seem to be about deleting this article but rather a meta-diatribe of your view on a particular guideline or policy. Can you shorten it and move the portions that are not your opinion on whether to delete this article to the talk page or possibly submit the discussion to the NOTNEWS talk page? --DHeyward (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jayen466: I didn't neglect to include "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia", I just excluded it for the sake of brevity. News reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and can cover a lot of trivia. What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Nothing. Just because news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia doesn't mean that any all all reporting about a celebrity is trivia (if you want to even consider Donald Trump a "celebrity" rather than "an important historical figure".) If it's reported that Gwyneth Paltrow was seen in the company of Tom Hanks, that's trivia. If it's reported that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Nobel Peace Prize, that's not trivia. See the difference?

Again: your argument rests on, and solely on, the notion that Donald Trump is a marginal figure worthy of only limited coverage. Make your case on that basis, if you like.

As to people being interested in the subject: sure, the page views are inflated by circumstance. But still, a non-trivial number of people are interested in this subject and will be far into the future, and if your point is that no one is or will be, you're indisputably dead wrong and know it or should. Jimmy Carter rabbit incident for instance, which is not hot news, has had 6,860 in the past month, and it's reasonable to assume that this article might well settle at something in that range. Whether we are saying "go screw yourself, we don't want you to know this information" to 22,075 people a month or 6,860, it's not something we want to be doing.

And if we delete this article that is what we are saying, no matter how you spin it. Even if, weighing the various pros and con, we feel that we must delete the article for some reason, we still are telling some non-trivial number of readers to go pound sand. If you want to say "deleting this article is a disservice to many people but sadly we are unfortunately compelled to do for reason X", I will respect you on that basis. If you want to say "deleting this article is not a disservice to anyone", then I can't respect you. Because then you would be spouting patently untrue things, and it's boring to and pointless to engage with people who spout patently untrue things.

@User:DHeyward: No, I won't be shut up. It's my right here to call out obscurantism when I see it. If you're offended by that, maybe you should stop being an obscurantist. There's nothing to submit to the NOTNEWS talk page: NOTNEWS is fine and I support it 100%. What I don't support is people who do not read NOTNEWS beyond the title and take "news" to mean "NOT recent events" or "NOT stuff that appears in newspapers" or whatever. Or who do read it and lack the acuity to understand it. Or who read it and are all "Yeah, I see what it says. But I don't give a rat's ass about what it says. What I want is for people interested in the subject to not find it here, have to spend 15 minutes googling it and maybe never find it; that's a win for me because the sort of person interested in this topic is not the sort of person that I, personally, find pleasing, and if misrepresenting rules gets me that win, then I'll do that". Whatever the reason or motivation is, people should stop misrepresenting our rules. Herostratus (talk)

• Delete. WP:UNDUE weight on something that, while unfortunately newsy, is in no way encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The reputation of an encyclopedia relays mainly on how it deals with its arguments. One thing is to talk about Trump, his campaign, his ideas, the criticism towards him,... another thing is to talk about trivialistic things only because journals nowadays deals with a lot of unworthy and trashy material. This article is trivialistic and unciclopedic in nature. A person should be able to discern when a journal is dealing with facts and newsworthy material and when it is dealing with things just to express a point of view or just to be scandalistic. You can't judge as reliable anything coming from a presumed reliable source just because the source is now judged reliable, you have always to analyse if the argument is encyclopedic and how it is dealt with. By the way, this article is necessarly POV too, because the aim of those articles cited as sources is to make Trump's handshakes looks weird... just for the sake of criticizing him. It was/is just a smear campaign. 93.36.191.55 (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this user has voted again, above. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have applied the strikethrough to the "Delete" part of the comment. TheValeyard (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the equivalent of commenting on red carpet dresses - it is covered in RSes, but nearly always fails the barrier of NOT#NEWS for us because it is celebrity gossip. It's sad that sources like CNN are reviewing this, but given the current political climate, the media seems to be throwing whatever mud it can find to see what sticks. This article gets into too much BLP territory and fails NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the equivalent of commenting on red carpet dresses because, as far as I'm aware, those dresses are not hiding a stockpile of nukes. Sleyece (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you know of... Sounds like WP:OR on the dresses and nukes. But the fact that Trump does have nukes does not make Trump's handshakes more relevant. PackMecEng (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing this got me thinking of is how we treat V. Putin's various oddities that make the news (shirtless photos, wilderness adventures, etc.) and we don't have a page for those individual items but we do havee Public image of Vladimir Putin where these are briefly mentioned. In a case of soemone like Trump who has had a long history of various aspects of his image parodied in the media even before being President, this might make sense - eg this can include his hair/hairpiece, how orange he looks, the "small hands" thing, this specific handshake issue, etc. but as subitems outside of the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point; we do have articles beginning with "Public image of", (as seen here), and I think Donald Trump's handshakes could be added to Public image of Donald Trump, if/when created. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close requested. Apparently User:DHeyward has edited my comments to make it appear that, under my signature, I said things that I didn't say and didn't say things that I did. He also changed my !vote to "Comment" so that it wouldn't be counted. Since this page is heavily edited many intervening edits have occurred and I can't easily roll back the vandalism. Nor is that the main concern now, the main concern being not allowing this sort of thing.

We don't know, without a forensic investigation of the page history, how much this editor or others have compromised the integrity of this discussion. But this is not the sort of behavior that we can countenance or allow to to be a way to win arguments, and on this basis I call for a procedural close. Let's start over with a clean slate. Herostratus (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. The above is mostly untrue and based on an inadviseadly hasty misreading of the record. Entirely my error, and sorry. (On the other hand, my !vote was redacted (by User:Sleyece, not User:DHeyward) to appear as a mere comment; this would likely cause it not be included in the headcount, although that probably wasn't the intent (I guess). But still. And I would ask people to not alter material under my signature in any respect without good cause. However, this, while bad behavior, does not rise to he level of significantly impairing the integrity of the discussion, so there's no need for a procedural close here.) Herostratus (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history DHeyward did not modify your comment [2]. Though @Sleyece: should not of edited it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I have not edited anyones' content. I have made a couple of copyedits, but your accusation implies something that is untrue. Sleyece (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. We are not supposed to make any "copyedits" to material under someone else's signature, even to fix spelling errors. Your "copyediting" went well beyond that. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only things that seems to have been changed in your comment were the words "stop it" with "comment". See here. Nothing else seems to have been modified.93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's right. However, if I want to call on the community to stop doing some harmful thing, I may. Last I heard. Has there been a change? Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The diff here shows you changing what someone else wrote. Which they objected to. Per WP:TPO it should not happen. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I violated no policy because "STOP IT" is not a vote. The user made a "comment," which my edit reflected Sleyece (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop it" is not a vote in your personal opinion. You are allowed to state your opinion. You aren't allowed to alter material under my signature to match your opinion. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which they objected to, it is not your call to make. PackMecEng (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely sorry. I thought I was helping. Sleyece (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not edit your comments in any way. Please refactor your false accusation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, you did not. The error is entirely mine due to unexcusably hasty misreading of the record. I do withdraw my false accustion, and apologize. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - exactly DHeyward, what they're doing is highly disruptive and why I requested a snow close. They're not liking the inevitable outcome and have deployed disruption as a diversionary tactic. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow close please? - this article has been through the mill, the result is a clear delete, and now it's becoming ridiculous with the most recent request for a procedural close based on misinformation. It's going downhill. Any of the few merge iVoters can simply add a sentence or two about the man's very unnotable handshakes at his BLP. Time for us to move on to more productive things. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result, most certainly, is NOT a "clear delete." That is an opinion you hold. Sleyece (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is your own and no longer interests me. Consensus does not override policy. Even if there was only 1 "delete" that properly describes policy noncompliance (as do many of the delete iVotes here), the result should be delete, provided the closer is following protocol and honoring WP:PAGs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with many controversial deletion discussions, there are conflicting policies. Keep votes, which I am a part of, hinge on there being enough sources for the article to stand alone (GNG). Delete votes, and I hope this is fair to say, have two main arguments. The article may not be relevant after some time (NOTDIARY), and it is not neutral enough (NPOV).

I especially understand people saying that the article is overquoting. Yet, that's an essay, and I urge Delete voters to improve the article.

In writing this, I'm being partisan, because I'm not using time to change the actual article, letting it stay as is. But, I know that Wikipedia will correct any neutrality issues in the long run. Though it may not look so great now, I'm sticking with my keep vote. This (contentious) discussion should not end so swiftly. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also add, and this may not be fair to say, but a Delete voter as also not been too polite: [3][4]. They did also remove those comments quickly. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a neutral NPR/AFC reviewer or veteran copy editor or GA/FA reviewer with at least 12,000 edits started working on cleaning-up this article, I'm of the mind that 99% of the content would be removed and the remaining last sentence or two would be merged with the Trump bio. It is that bad. I can't even imagine an encyclopedia with the reputation of Britannica or the like would even consider such an article. It is less than trivial, it is quite frankly, juvenile but I'm only one voice. You've had your say - it's time to close this disaster and move on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Look, I fall on the delete or merge side of most of these sorts of articles (or the sort of article this appears to be at first glance), and am skeptical of articles that elaborate upon some specific instance or synthesize multiple instances of the minutiae of politics. But that's not what this is. Yep, it's a weird subject for an article and looks, at first glance, trivial. But if you actually look for sources you find not a series of instances of awkward handshakes, but in-depth coverage and analysis of his handshakes in general, apart from news about a specific incident. Sources like these completely shoot down any sort of COATRACK, NOTNEWS, etc. arguments and make a compelling case for GNG.

It's also been covered enough (that's depth, not just breadth/numbers) that I would not advocate merging (a merge isn't a terrible idea here, and seems like the most likely compromise outcome, but I'm not advocating/bolding it here since it seems like this can sustain a separate article via WP:PAGEDECIDE).

Anyway, here's some of the stuff that matters (i.e. sources about the subject apart from the massive amount of coverage repeated with each individual incident -- which, by the way, goes back several years and is often in-depth in its own right -- since if it was just that sort of coverage, I would be much less likely to support keeping here):

• New York Times - All the President’s Handshakes
• Financial Times - Why Donald Trump’s weird handshake matters
• Washington Post - What Trump's handshake might tell us about him
• Business Insider - A body language expert breaks down 6 of Trump's handshakes
• National Review - Trump’s Handshakes and the Personalization of Politics
• The Conversation - The psychology behind Trump’s awkward handshake … and how to beat him at his own game
• The Independent - Psychologists break down the mysteries of Donald Trump's handshake
• The Guardian - The Trump handshake: how world leaders are fighting back
• Slate - Who’s Winning the Trump Handshake Challenge?
• Voice of America - Is Trump Sending Messages with His Handshakes?
• Time - A History of President Trump's Awkward Handshakes
• Washington Post - Trump and the art of the super-awkward handshake
• Huffington Post - The Madness And Science Behind The Donald Trump Handshake
• Washington Examiner - Trump's handshakes: A brief history
• The Week - A visual history of Trump's most awkward handshakes
• The Daily Beast - President Trump’s Handshake Hell Is All Our Handshake Hell
• (and of course the stuff about him not liking shaking hands via his book like Washington Post here)

There's in-depth coverage in many reliable sources sustained over a period of time, treating the subject as a whole, as a group, and individually. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for this list! I hope you don't mind that I've done a little cleanup to your comment. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've said it before and I'll say it again: These Handshakes are not awkward and it is subjective to say so. Any source calling the handshakes 'awkward' or 'madness' are bias and not reliable. They might get a psychologist to say it is an alpha male dominance ritual, but it is clear the big media hubbub surrounding these handshakes are really just another chance to call Donald Trump a misogynist. Re-working this article so it doesn't have that bias quickly delves into it being "Donald Trump's Alpha Male Handshakes", which in many ways also comes off as subjective. I am not sure how to fix this problem but it would be great to finally have a discussion and come to a consensus about it. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @PartyPresident: That sounds like a good idea! The easiest way I think one could start that is by rephrasing sentences to remove direct quotations, as I mentioned above. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 00:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• PartyPresident, none of this jibes with Wikipedia's basic content policies. I see that you are a new user, so I hope you don't take this as condescending to suggest reading WP:RS and WP:NPOV. These are sources with a reputation for fact-checking, error-correction, accuracy, editorial oversight, etc. (granted, a couple are markedly below the others in these departments, e.g. Huffington Post, Washington Examiner). That's what we care about. We don't decide that a word is biased first and pick sources based on usage of that word. If anything, it's the consensus among reliable sources that is the basis for neutrality. We also don't edit based on an agenda we believe mainstream sources to have. If the consensus among reliable sources (in the WP:RS sense) is wrong, then Wikipedia will be wrong (WP:TRUTH). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• PartyPresident, thank you for your interesting personal interpretation of Mr. Trump's handshaking practices and your opinion that anyone who says something different must be biased and unreliable. I haven't noticed any sources saying anything about Mr. Trump's handshakes having some relationship to misogyny. Such a connection is certainly not expressed in the article (and never was, as far as I know). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhododendrites, I understand these newspapers, it's editors and journalists are reliable, but not on this subject itself. Any psychologist they quote say the handshakes are simply a common masculine power grab and that it isn't notable. More then half of the article is just journalists and editors expressing their opinions about how the handshakes are awkward. Why? Because each one of them has a long track record of anti-Trump rhetoric. All of that junk needs to be removed from the article ASAP. Of course, when you do that there is going to be nothing notable left. The only reason these handshakes are even notable is because the media is hyping them up for controversy to smear Trump with. Wikipedia does not need to be a pawn of bias punditry. Changing the article to some variant of 'Masculine Donald Trump Handshakes' won't help, this article is a polarized wasteland. Thanks be to all - PartyPresident (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @BarrelProof All the professionals agree it is a masculine power grab. When confronted with facts from experts in the field I do consider opinions of others to be less credible on the subject. I do want to point out that this article mentions that Trump didn't shake Merkels hand. Trump did shake her hand, just not in the photo shoot, and neither the non-shake or the handshake were notable outside of punditry hype. It also makes me think, not one of these handshakes has had a real effect on Geo-political and diplomatic relations. The more I think about this article the more I realize it just doesn't have any encyclopedic merit to be on Wikipedia. Thanks be to all - PartyPresident (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• PartyPresident has made salient points. Just because a topic is covered by RS does not necessarily mean it's suitable for an encyclopedia, much less an entire article. This sort of thinly veiled partisan attack violates neutrality, and the subject matter is petty and insignificant. Xcalibur (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think that a "thinly veiled partisan attack" is a factual characterization of anything here. The content may not, and probably doesn't, rise to the level of needing an entire article. Merging the content into another page would be sufficient to address the topic. Sleyece (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind explaining why you believe there isn't a thinly veiled partisan stench comming from this article? And where do you think any left over relevant information should be put? Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This article just describes a unique tactic of the subject. It has a few notable sources and minor foreign policy implications. I think it could probably be merged here (a page with issues in it's own right), but it's hard to categorize the AfD. I think a lot of contention has come from a place where it's obvious there isn't enough notable content here for a full article, but it's far from obvious where to put the relevant leftover data. Sleyece (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is some information that is missing from the article (e.g., "All the professionals agree ... facts from experts in the field"), or if some of the information in it is not correct (e.g., that "Trump did shake [Merkels'] hand", or that commentary about Trump's handshakes is a "thinly veiled partisan attack"), and that can be supported by citations to reliable sources, please feel free to improve those aspects of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The expert analysis is already in the article. Obviously since you don't even know what actually happened between Merkel and Trump it isn't notable enough to be mentioned. The expert analysts in the article refutes the sources that assert the handshakes are 'awkward' or 'unusual' and to extension proves their bias. There is nothing that can be improved in this article, only things that need to be removed. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are sources cited in the article about what happened between Merkel and Trump. The article says on March 17, 2017, they did not shake hands, and quotes a Time article referring to "fanfare when he declined to shake the hand of German Chancellor Angela Merkel when she visited the White House." If what actually happened is different from what those descriptions say, I suggest to please correct the article and add appropriate citations to support the improved description of events. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, thank you for substantiating why this article should be deleted as noncompliant with WP:NOT and worse, trivial biased reporting which attempts to provide unqualified psychoanalysis of their opposition. They have zero understanding of a "business handshake" by a businessman which would serve as a far more useful and encyclopedic article than this POV kindergarten National Enquirer style garbage that reduces WP's credibility to the types of sources we ban.^{Atsme📞📧} 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion is now roughly ten times the word length of the article itself. Is there any sort of consensus, yet? Sleyece (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sleyece Care to chime in on the discussion? I just re-posted the problems with the article above. Would love to hear your opinion. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Topic is covered in multiple non-trivial sources, as detailed by Hameltion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, especially per Rhododendrites. Covered substantially in many reliable sources and clearly passes WP:GNG. There are some arguments this shouldn't have substantial reporting, but it does, so it is notable. The coverage is sustained and is not merely reporting on an isolated set of articles from a single news cycle in the sense of WP:NOTNEWS. This certainly is not just routine reporting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how each handshake is a sustainable event. Articles listing handshakes they arbitrarily deem notable don't count. I just don't see these handshakes having long lasting effect in the real world outside of the mainstream media bubble. I'll also say that they actually do always seek guidence from body language experts after election debates or world leader meetings, it is most certainly a routine. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject of the article isn't an individual handshake; it is Donald Trump's handshakes as a whole. That topic has received sustained coverage, which removes the need to question whether it could receive sustained coverage. Wikipedia reports based on reliable sources (e.g. your so-called "mainstream media bubble"). If you disagree with compiling an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, this may not be the proper place for you; that is a basic pillar of Wikipedia. There has never before been such sustained and substantial coverage of a president's handshake. Sure, CNN will perhaps bring on a "body language expert" for 5 minutes to fill time after a major summit of world leaders. That's very, very different from the coverage we see here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looking into this, I was initially pretty sure I was going to !vote delete, but Rhododendrite's rundown of the in-depth, focused coverage that this has recieved in RS changed my mind. Clearly passes GNG and the coverage in RS is significant enough to support its own article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the argument for Keep is predominately that the handshake has been "covered substantially". WP:NPOV and WP:RS both expect information to be cited to "authoritive sources". The pyschology of a handshake in RS biased against Trump such as the NYTimes and their affiliated publications, the latter of which should not be included in the "multiple sources" count, and should not be considered authoritive sources when it comes to the psychoanalysis of a person's handshake; therefore, if we are truly following NPOV, V and NOT, the RS should adhere to WP:MEDRS. Further, WP:V states: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:SUMMARY. While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The article is disputed primarily because it is noncompliant with several policies which are cited throughout. I have not seen one substantial argument that quells the dispute; rather, we keep seeing more of the same RS argument - that it's covered by news sources so it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia - but there is no consideration given to policy or for the sources' qualifications to write authoritively about what they profess to be a "personality disorder" of sorts. If we used this same argument to include information about a BLP in a medical article, we'd be laughed off the project.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just highlighting what is at the heart of so many of the delete arguments: RS biased against Trump such as the NYTimes and their affiliated publications, the latter of which should not be included in the "multiple sources" count -- If reliable sources are, collectively, exercising a covert political agenda to cover a subject in a way you don't like, or that you view as "biased", you should also see that "bias" reflected in Wikipedia because Wikipedia relies on these publications with reputations for editorial oversight, fact-checking, issuing corrections, accuracy, etc. If it were one or two covering this, you may have a point, but you're writing off quite a broad swath of the mainstream press.

MEDRS applies to biomedical content, not necessarily whole articles, so you're welcome to press for biomedical content in this article to comply with MEDRS, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this AfD, since the article does not comprise entirely of biomedical content. Though BTW I agree that we should at very least take care when getting into terms like "personality disorder". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites It isn't the sources or the editors that aren't reliable, it is their personal analysis of the handshakes that aren't reliable(or notable). None of the psychologists suggest Trump has a personality disorder or shows any problems from the handshakes, but the journalists and editors are forcing this notion that there is a problem with no evidence. Beyond that, the article has plenty of sources but it just isn't notable. LBJ doesn't have an article for his intimidation tactics and handshakes. I know I'm going to invoke the Crystal Ball, but just look at how Macron reacted to 'Trumps longest, most scandalous handshake ever' - He didn't care! None of the Trumps handshakes are going to have a long lasting effect on the real world, geo-politics, or foreign policy. As time goes on I think the media pundits will realize they can't change him and have to deal with his handshakes and we will see less and less sources on this subject. Look at Trump at the UN today, he was shaking the hands of all sorts of world leaders, although some handshakes were long, none of them were deemed notable by the media. His comments about Germophobia are not notable either. I've seen him recently doing hurricane stuff, when he puts on rubber gloves he always mentions his hand size and not his fear of germs. Also, I think we should consider his presidential candidacy when giving weight to this subject. There is nothing notable about his handshakes before he ran for President. Maybe if these handshakes were like a slogan, a clear reason as to why he won, I could see this article having encyclopedic value, but as it stands I just see bias punditry and a psychoanalysis of Donald Trump's social interactions. It makes me think of a good analogy - We wouldn't create an article called 'Donald Trump and Twitter' and start the first sentence with "U.S. President Donald Trump has had an unusual approach to the practice of Tweeting". I believe that some details can be merged from this article to other places, but it really has no merit on its own. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the sources or the editors that aren't reliable, it is their personal analysis of the handshakes that aren't reliable(or notable - WP:TRUTH. Also, notability is only about whether a subject is fit to have an article, it's not a quality of sources (or some aspect of sources).

forcing this notion that there is a problem with no evidence - Again, WP:TRUTH. It's not on us to evaluate whether their claims are true. The broad, extensive, in-depth coverage it what matters. Whether it's true, or whether you believe there is evidence is not the question.

article has plenty of sources but it just isn't notable - The sources are the notability. We don't decide what's important and then look for sources; coverage in these sources determines what we cover. Similarly, regarding Macron not caring, it doesn't really matter who cares as long as enough reliable sources care. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about 'Donald Trump and Eye Contact' There are a whole slew of sources about Donald Trump and his use of eye contact, if this could have an article that could as well. But that leads me to another question, should these subjects be merged into an article about Donald Trump's Social abilities or something? The media's facination with Donald Trump's social skills is just not encyclopedic. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Masem's persuasive argument; and WP:NOTNEWS, which despite all the sources cited, this fundamentally fails as gossip in fast moving news cycle. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites and others. The subject easily meets WP:SIGCOV. The WP:NOT arguments are not compelling. As usual, WP:NOTNEWS is misinterpreted. Specifically, this article is not 1.Original reporting, 2. a News Report, 3. a Who's who, or a Diary. Obviously with 31 cited references it's also not WP:UNDUE.- MrX 17:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's stated somewhere else in the discussion that WP:NOTNEWS is being frequently used here as a substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT Sleyece (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with Atsme, the sources need to follow WP:MEDRS. There are many opinions & sources in this article that violate WP:FRINGE. WP:NOTNEWS isn't substituted for anything but things Wikipedia is not, including: WP:NOTOPINION, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and I would also look at WP:NEWSORG to get a better understanding of the problems. I hope these policy issues can be addressed. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -Since this is relisted, may I take the liberty of reposting my rationale that got buried above?

WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, among others. In particular, from the general notability guideline: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] An in-depth analysis of Trump's handshakes is trivial fluff, which at most merits a section of a more general article, and certainly not its own article. Arguments in favor rest on reliable sources, and I quote again: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sadly, mainstream media outlets have proven themselves to be lacking in integrity in regards to President Trump, for which there are countless examples from the election to the present. On this particular topic, having several news sources is no guarantee of notability.

All the pro arguments rest on Reliable Sources, but RS are not a guarantee of inclusion. If the content in question violates notability, neutrality, relevance, and other guidelines such as undue weight and indiscriminate, then it should definitely not be included, even if 109 newspapers cover it. Xcalibur (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bigdan201 (aka Xcaliber), you only need to !vote once. Posting a second time (especially with a different signature) is not allowed. Please strike your second !vote. Ca2james (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, I was just rehashing my argument since this was relisted. I certainly wasn't trying to stuff the ballot, or be deceptive (I wasn't even thinking of the signature change). I reworked this into a comment, hopefully that's acceptable. Xcalibur (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ca2james. You shouldn't repost your argument, especially to WP:REHASH it.- MrX 20:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only reposted because this was relisted, and I felt like I was getting buried. It's not a case of ad nauseum. I also added on a few things at the end. Again, pardon me for any breach of decorum, it wasn't intended. Xcalibur (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xcalibur re-iterated their original statement, which was completely ignored. They've obviously vetted the discussion and decided it would be a good idea to re-state the problems in the article. That most certaintly was not a WP:REHASH, especially considering some ideas were added. The only rehash I see here are people constantly ignoring the problems adressed above to the point that they have to be constantly repeated.... It would be great to finally have discussions about the problems in the article and not about the discourse of the discussion itself. Thanks. - PartyPresident (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are obligated to WP:AGF -- Sleyece (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working it into a comment is better, thank you, Bigdan201. Your original !vote was way up there but the closer will read it and it doesn't need to be reposted later. Ca2james (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always willing to work with others. Maybe it wasn't necessary, but 1. this was relisted, 2. some editors were dismissing delete votes as being unfounded in policy, when mine directly addressed policy, 3. I added on some extra thoughts. But that's all I'll say for now. Xcalibur (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is to get other opinions, not opinions from the same people who don't feel like their comment was heard. Restating something just because you want to make sure it's seen (as opposed to being considered equally with everyone else's whose opinions comprise that wall of text) is precisely WP:REHASH. That said, since Bigdan201/Xcalibur is a relatively new user, it's very easy to believe it was in good faith and probably doesn't need to be belabored over. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge On the one hand, there are a plethora of sources available, as detailed above, and it's very clear that the subject passes GNG. On the other hand, the subject doesn't feel right - not because I think the reporting is derogatory or anything like that, but because the subject matter seems trivial. However, I don't actually have any policy based reasons to delete and I'm unconvinced by the alphabet soup given above by others, as those alphabets have been countered in later comments, so I can't !vote delete. That leaves me with a weak keep or a merge. I think merging to the main Donald Trump article (since the subject predates his presidency and is not just about popular culture) would be the best option, but again I don't have policy based reasons I for saying that. Horrible argument, I know. Ca2james (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I made an analogy above comparing Trumps handshakes to his tweets. Well, his twitter activity is mentioned under a social media article. I also noticed mentioned earlier that his use of eye contact goes hand in hand with his handshakes. I think this article could survive if it is changed to something about his body language or social interactions with world leaders, and whether or not this could be a list. Thoughts? Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article like "Donald Trump and diplomacy" would work, with handshakes as a section. I wouldn't object if this topic were covered by a more generalized article -- it's the stand-alone article that is unwarranted. Xcalibur (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's still just stupid, inane, non-encyclopedic trivia. Volunteer Marek  03:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with every word of the above statement - MagicatthemovieS

• It has been pointed out that the "above statement" is clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for forgetting to sign the previous comment. Sleyece (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Using handshakes to denigrate world leaders is an interesting and notable approach. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge: This is one of those many things that may be worth its own article at the moment but a year from now may well be suited to merge into a larger article about Trump's various idiosyncratic behaviors. Montanabw^(talk) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:BU Rob 13 and others. Meets GNG. Sustained coverage over several distinct events so NOTNEWS does not apply, and there nothing "indiscriminate" about it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it does fit WP:NOTNEWS, under WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". - I also believe it fits other parts of What Wikipedia is Not, including WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTOPINION. Thanks - PartyPresident (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Donald Trump has an insane skill for generating enough coverage to meet notability for ANYTHING NEGATIVE ever said about him. The question is, do we play into his exploitation of humankind, or do we IGNORE ALL RULES and stop feeding the world's biggest troll. I rather say the latter approach is the one we should adopt. Don's handshakes can be mentioned somewhere else among the too-many articles devoted to this man. Thus, I conclude the subject is notable and plainly meets WP:GNG, but we should delete, because Wikipedia is better than Donald Trump.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it "plainly meets WP:GNG", I agree. Should we "IGNORE ALL RULES and stop feeding the world's biggest troll"? Well, the WP:IAR is actually about improving WP content, and if something does meet WP:GNG, this something should be kept to improve the content. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this subject gets its own article Donald Trump's hair should get one. Also thinking about making an article about his tie length, as well as his use of eye contact and something along the lines of 'Women wearing High Heels in the Trump Administration". I know I can get enough sources for those to meet GNG and I know there is more juicey things Trump does. The Obama Tan Suit event could have an article too, it was mentioned a bunch on its two year anniversery a few weeks ago. If anybody has any more ideas I would love them. Thanks. - PartyPresident (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Observe closely, as we witness a rare WP:OTHERSTUFF Argument in its natural habitat. What a splendid opportunity to observe its behavior in its own environment, unimpeded by guidelines. TheValeyard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is not advocating for deletion. This probably wasn't the place to mention that Donald Trump's hair has enough leg to stand on for its own article outside of the 'Donald Trump popular culture', but this pettiness you just displayed is beneath this discussion, please assume good will. The rest of the topics I mentioned meet GNG and should probably be made, considering how much this article proves the encyclopedic value of practically anything Trump does. Honestly the guy should just have his own wiki! I was also mentioning before in other comments above that this article may need to be merged with the eye contact and maybe even the tie article. An article about Trump's health and mental/social abilities? I understand how all this can come off as sarcasm or ridicule, but this is some pretty difficult stuff to sift through because the way the article is written now is just plain awful and needs to be heavily worked on. I have made numerous suggestions but continue to get ignored. Cheers. - PartyPresident (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, PartyPresident, this is obviously a toxic debate no closer to achieving consensus than it was 10,000 words ago. Please, lets just appreciate this little gift of snark @TheValeyard: has given us... Please. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2017 (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.