Donald Trump's handshakes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The arguments to delete far outweigh the arguments to keep, discounting any iVote count. The delete arguments are convincing, and were well presented by several respected NPP editors without any indication of bias. Following are some examples: [1], [2],[3]. Additionally, the questionable sources and WP:SYNTH used in the section Explanation given by Donald Trump, the use of questionable and unreliable sources throughout the article, the WP:FRINGE aspects and medical analysis without using high quality sources per WP:MEDRS and the overall attempt to disparage the subject is in complete noncompliance with BLP, NPOV, and SYNTH which makes it appear as an attack page, and that aspect should also be considered; however, if the aforementioned is rejected as cause, then the arguments for delete are substantive and stand by themselves. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not offering a specific recommendation, but "trivia" is not a deletion reason, there is nothing in the policy supporting that (WP:TRIVIA is a guideline about trivia sections nothing to do with articles). INDISCRIMINATE as the section clearly notes is about the way information is presented, not about whether a topic merits an article. Other points such as NOTNEWS are legit (albeit not uncontested) but the focus on "trivia" drags the strength of the delete case down. Also, maybe I missed something but BLP and MEDRS were not mentioned in the AFD. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdity is, and this article is absolute absurdity. It's clearly nothing more than an attack page with inuendos by biased journalists who have nothing better to do with their time than write bait-click garbage. The article is an embarrassment to the integrity of this encyclopedia as much as it would be if we had articles about the way Obama sings, or walks, or dances, or Hillary's multiple falls and fainting spells. Pah-lease. Hate him, or not - the rest of the world can see how absurb this article is, and that is a fact. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Synth, fringe & medrs arguments seem a little strained, and were not made in the XfD, so probably shouldn't be considered here. Anyone with strong concerns those have been violated could raise the matter on the article talk page.

BLP & NPOV issues don't seem to have been substantially raised at the XfD either, though due to the criticality of complying with these, perhaps we ought to review this angle. To me, looks like the article is written in close to the most neutral possible way, given the nature of the coverage, so well done to the editors. There is the view that the article topic is inherently NPOV. Even fair minded people who supported Hillary would admit the Donald has many fine qualities, which can be reflected in most articles about him to help offset any negatives. On the topic of handshakes however, I've not noticed sources including any positives at all, it just doesn't seem to be one of the many things he's good at unfortunately. If the article was about anyone less than a head of state, I probably would support deletion as an attack page. But given the undeniably huge importance of this topic to global international relations, my view is it might be excessively chivalrous towards the Donald to delete.

This leaves the actual arguments at the XfD. On the delete side, almost every vote can be boiled down to an assertion of triviality. As JoJo explains, this is not a good delete argument even if true. And in this case, few with much understanding or engagement with politics & business could agree this subject is even the slightest bit trivial. The keep side refuted the triviality argument, and laid out stronger policy and precedent based arguments , with this characteristically concise and compelling vote by the Colonel a nice example.

Even before Macron, tens of thousands of reliable sources deemed Trumps handshakes with Abe, Merkel & Tradeu worthy of dedicated coverage - they are hugely important to global international relations, and hence in a sense to the fate of our planet. Perhaps conscious that some intelligent folk didn't grasp this, that most reliable of sources the Financial Times run a front page article titled Why Donald Trump's weird handshake matters. The FT article is cited multiple times in our article, and it includes this description of the handshake: "the threshold act, the beginning of politics".

Im sorry delete voters, but if much weight had been given to the triviality argument, then in the eyes of people who have a good understanding of geostrategy & politics, that would have been rather embarrassing. On strictly weight of policy based argument, this was a clear keep. Still, given the proportion of delete votes from many fine editors, it was a good call to close this as no consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. I'd prefer we not have this article, but it clearly meets WP:GNG and there isn't enough of a consensus (or even all that close) to run with WP:IAR (which would be my basis for deletion). Hobit (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No consensus is the correct outcome. There are strong, policy-based arguments on both sides. The issue boils down to an interpretation of WP:TRIVIAL or WP:EVENT vs. WP:GNG and the importance of the topic regarding international politics (anti-single event). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You have GOT to be kidding me is the correct outcome. Since when did we start to use throwaway humour-pieces from CNN, complete with animated gifs, as the basis for encyclopaedia articles? NorthAmerica1000 did exactly what we expect closers to do ---- he closed in accordance with the consensus ---- but in this case the consensus was just utterly ludicrous. Are we here to write an encyclopaedia or not? "Overturn" is the wrong word because it implies censure of NorthAmerica1000's decision and that's inappropriate here. I'd prefer "Vacate close" as phrasing.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is unexpected - I guess if even someone as cultured as yourself can see this article as ludicrous, anyone can. Good Atsme must be right about people seeing it as absurd all across the world. Together with the article admitedly haveing some attack page properties (though not a true attack page IMO), I could accept your suggestion for a vacate close, as long as it's absolutely clear there is on censure of North's perfectly correct NC decision. That said, maybe those still wanting to destroy the article could consider the editor retention implications. The article seems to have been created by the main editor of Balfour Declaration. And then expanded by another editor with experience creating GA class articles. These are serious, politically aware editors. We have very few with their sort of talent volunteering their time to the graft of article creation. There could be a risk they'd be de-motivated if their hard work was destroyed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: It ultimately doesn't matter what prompted an article to be created; what matters is whether the topic itself is notable, and the fact that there are multiple reliable sources covering it (not just a CNN "throwaway piece") suggests that it is, according to WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I've got a message on my talk page about the Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting, which I think shouldn't be a standalone article. What's your view on that? Multiple sources should mean keep, right?—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a single event so a redirect may be more appropriate in that case. Here, as Hobit has already noted, Trump's handshakes have been written about many times before Macron.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, so there's a special reason not to keep the anti-Hillary article that doesn't apply to the anti-Trump one. Would you agree with me that Theresa May's leather trousers are more notable than Donald Chump's handshakes?—S Marshall T/C 19:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall, I think this article should be deleted or redirected to Donald Trump but I didn't contribute to the original AfD. The main difference I see between this article and the tarmac meeting article (which I think should be redirected) is that the handshakes received international attention and there are international mainstream independent reliable sources for them, whereas the tarmac meeting did not receive such attention (and neither has the conspiracy theory stuff that's being put into that article). US politics is nuts. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the major argument for deletion is that the subject is to trivial or unencyclopedic to have a standalone article. Those are, in principle, valid reasons to delete an article, but they are also very subjective. While the numbers were leaning towards deletion in this AfD opinion was still fairly divided as to whether this subjective position is valid or not. Given that No Consensus is a valid close. This contrasts with his hair, where the discussion was much more one-sided. Hut 8.5 21:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse fair reading of the (lack) of consensus here. Atsme, I think it might be fair to open a merge conversation. FWIW, I would have !voted to delete her per WP:NOTNEWS or WP:5P1/commonsense, but I think that the keep !votes were policy based enough to challenge the delete !votes in this. Wikipedia exists on people applying broad principles to work in specific circumstances. While I think the broad principles say not to have this here, enough others made policy based objections to that where I think no consensus was a very justifiable close within NA1000's discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP can sink any lower than an article that disparages a US President's handshake sourced to biased news, loaded with SYNTH, and non-medical analysis. It's a sad day for WP's credibility. Maybe if it was accompanied by a cartoon animation it might be worthy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree: if I'd participated in the AfD I'd have made what I think was a pretty strong argument for deletion. The question at DRV is whether NA1000's close was reasonable, and I think it was here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete as unencyclopedic topic and WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree it's not encyclopedic, but I don't buy the SYNTH argument. We have an entire news articles about Trump and handshakes ([4]). Heck, there are articles talking about how we have too many articles talking about Trump and handshakes. No Synth needed. Hobit (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:IAR  The nomination seven hours after creation of the article cited an "information page" without a pretense to WP:BEFORE analysis needed by participants, or any connection to WP:Deletion policy.  The nominator later openly documents that the nomination is a deliberate disruption of AfD arising from a dispute.  There are no less than 3 "Delete or merge", as if the decision is someone else's problem.  I wouldn't object to an overturn to delete WP:IAR, as I think that the viewpoint of history is not currently available for this topic, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; but I think an AfD initiated with a nomination based in WP:Deletion policy is a better path to that result.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Precedent exists (and I know that's often considered a dirty word) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms that we don't keep breakout articles about such narrow topics, because the entire fact that it is broken out in the first place is WP:UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about exactly this case when I saw this DRV. My thought was that _this_ is actually somewhat relevant to geopolitics. Again, I'd probably push for IAR deletion, but this is actually a serious topic covered by serious news outlets. It probably _shouldn't_ be, and I'm not in favor of us having this article. But it isn't quite MO's arms. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Endorse. This is pure Trumpcruft and completely WP:UNDUE as User:Jclemens points out. That said, the closing admin can only work with what they're given, and in this case "no consensus" was clearly the only possible outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse There's no consensus, and there's unlikely to be a consensus at this time. "No consensus" here should mean there's no prejudice against re-nomination in several months time. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and see Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a correct reading of the (lack of) consensus. Atsme you may not like the outcome of the debate but DRV is not the place to remedy this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since learned, Pawnkingthree, and here is the irony of it all: [5] and [6] 🤣. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but WP:DRV is specifically for procedural objections to a close – it's deliberately narrow to avoid the AFD simply being re-run. As it was no consensus you may well find if it's nominated again later down the line it will get deleted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close as reflecting consensus of the AfD discussion. Ca2james (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Endorse- While I myself would want to see the article deleted; that cannot fault the closure of a discussion--which shall be the proper gauging of a consensus.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have informed about this to Sandstein before posting here. The AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson) concerned a fancruft article that is being made after forking content from other articles, with no content of its own. The AFD and User talk:Sandstein#Disagree with closure provides the reasons that why this article had to be deleted, as delete votes were policy based, keep votes weren't. Excelse (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Contrary to the nom, keep votes were policy based as they included reference to the subjects obvious notability. You don't have to explicitly link to a policy like WP:GNG to make a policy based vote. Even a delete voter conceded the topic had notability.

Can not even believe that arguably Wikipedia's two best AfD closers have been put up for review. Good old Sandstein, while he unfortunately leans slightly towards the deletionist end of the Del/Inc spectrum, he's always great at evaluating consensus, and I've noticed over the years he often fairly treats the losing side in his close notes, admitting their strong points rather than mocking them as some admins do. Sandstein and North should be showered with Barnstars and cookies, not put up for review! It's like 2016 all over again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even Nose of Michael Jackson[7][8] would pass WP:GNG but we don't need it. All of the references are valid for already existing List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson, but nothing else. There is no justification of this CFORKED fancruft, we can make same article for anyone who has a "legacy" section on main article, but CFORKING is against the rule. Excelse (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree on an article about his nose, but given that he was a cultural super star, an article on his general impact seems quite reasonable. We don't have to avoid forking in every case, this seems to me a case where WP:SPLIT applies. Maybe others will agree with you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: This is one of the cases where the outcome is a matter of editorial judgment rather than clear policy: Nobody can really contest that there are many sources relevant to the topic, and any overly fannish content can be improved by editing, so the real question here is whether this is a sufficiently distinct topic from Michael Jackson generally as to warrant a spin-off article. This requires the individual evaluation and an overall assessment of the sources, which isn't something that the closer should make a decision about on their own. Neither side discussed the sources very seriously, but if anything, the "keep" side appeared very slightly more thorough. Overall, a poor discussion, divided responses, and no basis on which to make a policy-based decision results in no consensus.  Sandstein  11:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close Contrary to nominator's assertion, a number of the keep votes are policy-based. As a for instance, "MJ is a bg subject, subarticles make sense" and "the article successfully shows the extent of Jackson's cultural impact. Forking content is eminently sensible here" can be viewed as making the argument of our guideline: WP:SUBARTICLE. No consensus seems a well-reasoned outcome of the policy-based arguments for and against deletion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sensible at all because WP:SUBARTICLE is not for creating a fancruft WP:POVFORK without getting consensus on the main article (happens to be FA) first. The content has to be moved, not just deceptively copy pasted in POV language. Excelse (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close Personally, I'd have closed it as No Consensus, but that defaults to Keep anyway, so it doesn't really matter. This is always the problem when we have an article about a subject which is inherently notable (there's certainly a very good article possible here - the lede isn't bad at all) but actually the content is mostly complete crap. Here's hoping someone with a bit of knowledge on the subject can turn it into the decent article it could be. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't fault the closure, which I'd have to endorse, but the article looks like a POV fork and I would hope it gets merged back. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right. I would wait for a month or three then probably redirect to main article after discussion. Excelse (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There may be many ways to address this, but Sandstein's close is not the best way to accomplish that. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, on thinking it through more, you don't even really want the article deleted--you want the content back where you think it belongs. That's a merge discussion, not an AfD in the first place, since WP:ATD applies. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are making this up, I clearly said "Thus delete." Thats not asking for merge. You can have your opinion but don't misrepresent what I said. Excelse (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse fair reading of the lack of consensus. Both sides had policy-based arguments, which means the AfD came down to judgement calls about how to apply the policies in question. There wasn't a consensus amongst the participants on this point. Good close. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]