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]

AfDs for this article:
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]
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]
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]
Thx for pointing that out - meant to say POV fork. Atsme📞📧 03:47, 10 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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
@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]
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]
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]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not Trump again...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 01:02, 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]
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]
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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=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]
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]
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]
Hear, hear!! Thank you Andreas. Atsme📞📧 15:22, 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]
  • 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]
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. 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]

  • I have applied the strikethrough to the "Delete" part of the comment. TheValeyard (talk) 02:25, 19 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]
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]
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]
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]
  • @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]
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]
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]
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]
  • I apologize for forgetting to sign the previous comment. Sleyece (talk) 17:12, 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]
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]
  • 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.
More