Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's handshakes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Opinions are divided, and no consensus for a particular action regarding the article has occurred herein. North America1000 02:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's handshakes[edit]

Donald Trump's 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)

WP:!HERE (NOTE: Position subsequently changed to "keep") Sleyece (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm sorry, I meant to check "Watch this page" when I added the nomination to the main page. "minor edit" was an complete accident. I hope it does not stifle debate. Thanks! Sleyece (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Criteria #1, "...fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". There is no actual rationale given for deletion, only a wikilink to WP:!HERE. "WP:Not here" is neither policy nor guideline, it is an informational page regarding editorial conduct. So on the grounds that it is not a binding policy or guideline, does not apply to article content, and the article creator appears t be a longstanding editor, this AFD is flawed and should be summarily closed. TheValeyard (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheValeyard, the article creator is a longstanding editor with a history of good conduct. I was clearly only referring to the article itself. Sleyece (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale to delete an article cites a behavioral guideline for editors that has nothing to do with article content. I would label your argument "flawed" if there was an actual argument to label. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Presidency of Donald Trump#Leadership style and philosophy. While it should not be dedicated its own article as it isn't an encyclopedic subject, it should be awarded a section there, as it relates to his philosophy and style. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Are we serious with this? UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and a cornucopia of others. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While a certain shoe-banging incident by Nikita Khrushchev rose to myth level, Trump's handshakes are mere WP:TRIVIA at this point. In case a merge is preferred by the community, that should be to a new section at Donald Trump in popular culture: topic doesn't qualify for the presidency article. — JFG talk 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the article has problems, but it's about a series of events with significant coverage and there's no obvious merge target. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm confused. What exactly is the basis for this nomination for deletion? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the main page (Trump), the active section "Handshakes" was created by the article creator (Onceinawhile). There was immediate disagreement, both for and against, as to the ability of the new article to contribute a full article worth of knowledge. Therefore, I created a debate to resolve the issue. Sleyece (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture, and possibly the leadership style section of the Presidency as well. This is irredeemable trivia, not encyclopedic. Yes, I know it has been commented on by sources, and analyzed as a way of asserting dominance, and it deserves a mention or a section at other pages. But we only make ourselves look ridiculous if we maintain an article about it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very definition of triviality. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as Article Creator). In terms of ability to fill up a full article, we could easily do that and more, and might have already done so if this AfD hadn't been initiated within just seven hours of the article's creation.
All major international news outlets have been reporting on and analyzing the phenomenon consistently since the beginning of this year.
For starters, we could write a full "History" section, a full "Analysis" section and a full "Reactions" section.
A selection of some of the more substantial writeups are below:
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (as Nominator) The preceding statement has given me significantly more confidence that the article could be a full page with a lot of work. Sleyece (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sleyece:The article has become a full page with a lot of work. Please could you have another look, and maybe reevaluate your position? Sagecandor (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sagecandor: In light of the recent editions to the article, my position on the article has changed to a full "keep". Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Sleyece:If you have changed your position on the article to a full "Keep", does that mean you've withdrawn your nomination ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Sagecandor: I can't do that in good conscience. This is still a heated debate, and I must wait for a concensus. The best I can do for now is to throw my support in your favor. Good luck. Sleyece (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Sleyece:Perhaps you could maybe add a note to your nomination statement, at the top, noting you've since changed to "Keep" sentiment ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial subject. Could be merged to Donald Trump in popular culture if merge is preferred. PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- involves 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that "trivia articles should be avoided"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If and when Trump orb gets deleted, then maybe I'd change my stance. This is perhaps 0.55 in "Trump orbs" :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were right then: "No lasting significance or societal impact." The orb is trivia, whether he's touching it, kissing it, or shaking it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with K.e.coffman--and the funny thing is that the stupid orb, look at the sources--it's all from around the time of the event. That event is over, and so are the discussions/memes about it: recent mentions are just that, mentions. These handshakes are an ongoing thing. Yes, I fully understand how stupid that last sentence was, but with this presidency, that's how it goes. Next up, the boy scout speech. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finnusertop, you're free to use the reason for nomination as a reasoning for supporting deletion. Please be aware, however, that this user (as Nominator) did slightly amend the original nomination after a strong statement from the Article Creator. Sleyece (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator provided the following justification for deletion: "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". This is not a valid justification. The subject received huge coverage in press. This is one of things D.Trump is known for. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seriously, odd, probably embarrassing, mannerisms of a person deserve an article in an encyclopedia? Have we lost sight of our mission? WP:TRIVIA, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FODDERFORCOMEDIANS, WP:STUPIDHUMANTRICKS, WP:GETAROOM. Sorry, I have yet to create the last three refs. Objective3000 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We keep pages about presidential dogs. This is something a lot more serious because it tells a lot about the person. Hence the significant RS coverage. This is reference work. If something was covered and became as famous as this subject, it deserves inclusion. It passes our notability guidelines by a wide margin. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it pass WP:10YT? Objective3000 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one knows. Maybe it will. Well, using handshakes to denigrate world leaders is something rather innovative. This is even better than denigrate world leaders by coming late to meetings (that is what Putin does). Yes, maybe that belongs to another page - I have no strong opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no pass/fail for something labeled "...It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay". Argue the merits of the article on actual policy or guidelines, not Wiki-errata. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, unencyclopedic and trivial. I'm also somewhat surprised to see keep votes here from people who have been trying to get Trump campaign–Russian meeting deleted/merged. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Are we just giving up on being an encyclopedia? What is the benefit of this trivial article to readers? WP:NOTNEWS is also appropriate in this case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as covered widely in national and international press. If the discussion had been a vote on whether national and international press were right in spending any time or space on the matter, I would have voted "definitely not," but that is not how this works. Mlewan (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as Nominator) This article has been greatly improved since nomination. It has had numerous content additions since initiating debate, and the references have increased by a factor of ten. Most importantly, the article now clearly defines how the subject of the article can and does have relevant foreign policy implications. Sleyece (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absurdly trivial. Everything involving Trump receives intense coverage but we cannot have articles on all things Trump. Based on the ridiculous coverage it generated, we could create an article on the number of scoops of ice cream he receives, but the encyclopedia wouldn't benefit from that and it doesn't benefit from this either. Merge to Donald Trump in popular culture as we did with Donald Trump's hair.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While absurdly trivial (though perhaps not completely trivial, as this is notable as a power play - just as Hafez al-Assad's bladder diplomacy was in the 80s and 90s ([1] [2]) - it is a subject that is given quite some coverage in WP:RS and has risen to the point where opposing world leaders prepare scripted responses for said handshake and coverage. Absurdly trivial things, if they received WP:SIGCOV are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not. From the same section you link to: topics meeting GNG are "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ... '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." In other words, a ton of topics may meet GNG but are still excluded because they fail WP:NOT. I would think that "absurdly trivial" things are not what general encyclopedias are for. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything in WP:NOT that applies to this article. Not even close. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When I first saw this, my knee-jerk reaction was that it should be deleted. But I was quickly persuaded to reverse my position by the significant number of quality reliable sources where the handshake is the primary topic. It easily passes WP:GNG, it is inoffensive, and so it should remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. The plethora of news analysis only shows how little the news has to report. Yoninah (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of media attention on this and gives insights into Trump's personality. --Penbat (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not a single plausible or encyclopedic reason why this would need a separate article from his existing BLP, any more than his hair (which was also attempted as a standalone article a few months ago, I remind y'all) would. Sources were shown to attempt an argument that his hair passed GNG as a standalone topic too, but that doesn't mean it actually does — it's an aspect of the fact that he's a topic, not a separate topic in its own right independently of him. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I struggle with the fact that nearly every citation is either to opinion or speculation on this page. The National Review article cited on the page offers a glimpse about the trivial nature of the interaction. The article states, "Our political culture seems to have a pathological fixation with the peculiar personalities of our politicians" and "Each handshake, each tap on the shoulder or rub on the back, presents a new opportunity to spend hours poring over the footage, playing it in slow-motion or in reverse, performing biblical hermeneutics on Macron’s body language, the tensions of his torso under his suit, the minute flexing of the muscles in his wrist at the crucial moment. Statecraft becomes the lowbrow drama of Big Brother." The article concludes that there is a "intense fascination" with the personality quirks of the president, but that fascination leads to less focus on real policy issues. If there is an encyclopedic article here, it is about the media's (and the public's) obsession with the personality quirks of the president. --Enos733 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument pretty much makes the case for inclusion, by noting the media's intense focus on the subject matter of the handshakes. Banal or insipid or silly or whatever, the media has made this into a notable story by the very nature of its coverage, significant coverage which has persisted over time, is found in reliable sources, and is independent of the subject. All the bullet points of the WP:GNG have been hit. TheValeyard (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The quote compares it with Big Brother, a topic on which proudly have 740 separate articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two people who want the article to remain trying to twist a !vote? Just leave the closing admin to judge the weight if arguments. As to every government having a memo on Trump's handshake...? [citation needed] – SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My belief is the article should be deleted. That said, I believe there is notability for an article like Media coverage of Donald Trump, similar to Media Coverage of the Iraq War or Media coverage of climate change. --Enos733 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC) --Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic trivial rubbish. - SchroCat (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. TheValeyard (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One essay does not get round the fact that this is trivial rubbish. It's a non-subject, and just because lazy-arsed journalists have to fill space and copy what everyone else is doing, does not mean it is a fit subject for an encyclopaedia. If you really want to play policy bingo with alphabetti-spaghetti, UNDUE, NOTNEWS are two, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. - SchroCat (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see !votes here pointing out how much press there is about this, or how many references the article has. But a look at the article shows that the vast majority of the text and the references are about a single handshake event, that between Trump and Macron. By my count there are only five out of the 31 references that predate Macron. The article is now so padded that we have eight different references about Trump's comment that "Macron loves holding my hand," and five to document that Macron said his handshake was "not innocent." Yes, the press went nuts over this, but that doesn't mean we have to dignify it with an article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is only a minor aspect of Trump's life, unrelated to Trump's administration of his policy or his negotiations with other world leaders. Would we have articles on handshakes of other well-known figures, simply because they are in the public eye?Vorbee (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not moved by the number of available sources. It is unfortunate that some media outlets have fallen into the habit of hysterically over-analyzing and critiquing anything and everything related to Trump. We do not need to jump off the deep end just because they have done so. This is the very definition of trivial and unencyclopedic. Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meme-able but unfortunately not long-term notable. I doubt this is even encyclopedic as well. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As much as I am revolted by the proliferation of trivial articles pertaining to US politics, this is not shite, IMO. It's a pretty big deal, which has invited commentary not just from pundits, and which seems to be something that many are looking for now whenever Trump meets someone. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial per MelanieN, unencyclopedic per Lepricavark, trivial rubbish per SchroCat, & absurdly trivial per LM2000. Grahamboat (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – At first I thought this should be deleted. But there is an overwhelming amount of sources that are about his handshakes. This passes our notability threshold. Folks claiming it is "trivial" aren't addressing the fact that this is widely covered in the media in great detail. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MX, I trust you didn't see my comment above, where I discussed precisely the issue that it is "widely covered in great detail", showing that the vast majority of it is about one incident, and that the references in the article are very redundant. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...
... all the way back to
Andrew D. (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I (as Nominator) changed positions after work was done. I should have waited longer than seven server hours to nominate a page for deletion. Sleyece (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the subject is pretty silly in my view, it's not nearly as silly as the subjects of many other articles on Wikipedia. Sure, I wish the editors who have contributed to the article would devote their time to more serious politics articles, and sure, it makes Wikipedia seem a bit petty. But I also wish the editors who devote their time to the absurd minutiae of videogames and obscure television characters would do the same thing. It makes me cringe each time one of those articles is brushed up to FA status and featured on the front page, and we're not about to delete those sorts of things. I see no reason to hold the politics space to a higher standard. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find this to actually be an important subject. Its a very visible part of his personality and, ever since he became president, his presidency. There are countless news articles about it. And though it may seem silly at first glance, diving deeper you can find a lot of legitimacy to the existence of this article. I vote a very strong keep. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 00:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also just echoing what Andrew said, there are visible parts of other president's personality and presidency that might seem equally silly at first glance. It makes a lot of sense to have this article. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, much more press covering this than the topics of many other "Trump" pages we have, possibly could even be notable for things outside politics (I would bet money there will be an anthro paper on this in a few years...) --Yalens (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge to Donald Trump in popular culture Rhadow (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article of debate has almost no connection to the suggested page. Sleyece (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia. Notable aspects of mannerisms should be in his bio. This form of navel gazing to document every waking moment of Donald Trump really needs to stop. It's a rather small set of editors that predictably generate this paparazzi-like coverage. We don't need in depth coveage of handshakes. Every president has handshake photo-ops and it is not notable enough for an article, even for such larger-than-life personas like Trump. --DHeyward (talk) 22:09, 29 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump%27s_handshakes&oldid=1077970452"