Deletion of Donald Trump and handshakes (2nd nomination)

Comment: anchor|Hameltion}} While there may be some problems with the article, it passes the |general notability guideline, as there has been much coverage of the subject. Furthermore, as Zero wrote, no reason for deletion is actually mentioned, just |NPOV concerns
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NPOV)

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

Comment: per Rhododendrites and others. The subject easily meets . The  arguments are not compelling. As usual, NEWS is misinterpreted. Specifically, this article is not 1.Original reporting, 2. a News Report, 3. a Who's who, or a Diary. Obviously with 31 cited references it's also not 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per . This is routine coverage of interactions between world leaders that is not newsworthy and encyclopedic. How world leaders walk, talk and shake hands is the subject of routine speculation. See for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/vladimir-putin-killer-genius-kleptocrat-spy-myths Theory 3 discussed in this article about Putin, that his gait allegedly indicates a stroke in utero. We aren't going to include an article on Vladimir Putin's Gait. This is the same level of routine coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: especially per Rhododendrites. Covered substantially in many reliable sources and clearly passes . There are some arguments this ''shouldn't'' have substantial reporting, but it does, so it is notable. The coverage is sustained and is not merely reporting on an isolated set of articles from a single news cycle in the sense of . This certainly is not just routine reporting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The topic clearly and unambiguously meets the GNG. It has been covered in detail in multiple reliable sources. There's so much  here that it would make your head spin. I don't see how this is even a debate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The topic has great notability per the  and was featured on the main page just the other day without any problem.  The nomination is devoid of any policy-based argument and the page has already survived a previous AfD so there's no case to answer here.  Donald Trump in popular culture is not an appropriate merge target because that title conventionally relates to appearances in fictional circumstances such as the Simpsons, while this is real-world history in the making.  If we were to merge it anywhere it would have to be into the main article about Donald Trump where it certainly merits a mention but it's usual for major figures such as US Presidents to have numerous spin-off articles like this.  Deletion is out of the question and would be contrary to |policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CENSOR)

Comment: Violates all three of  (See NoMoreHeroes' comment), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|WP:NPOV (see main article talk page; also shows article isn't suited for Wikipedia as is) and most importantly Wikipedia:Notability|WP:Notability (A topic like this does not need or deserve a Wikipedia article). Unlike Trump's Hair, which has notability (it is iconic and even has a song named after it), there is nothing noteworthy about the way he shakes hands with people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: or Merge) - Doesn't meet . Tabloid stuff -- no place in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Violates : ''"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively ... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. ... BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."''. Words such as "awkward" and "bizarre" and expressions such as "yanked the judge towards him as if he were a pet dog on a leash" do not reflect a conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and dispassionately written article. It should be noted that not everything published in a reliable source automatically lacks bias;  states this clearly: ''"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. ... Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NEWSORG)

Comment: WP:NPOV, , , , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per hat Wikipedia is not, specifically its sections WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Having an article for something as routine and superfluous as this quite frankly is fucking ridiculous regardless of who the subjects involved are. We are not supposed to be Trump-opedia either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)

Comment: per  and . There's no reason for a stand-alone article here.  The topic can be discussed on Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q1 and Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q2|Q2, but neither a merge nor a redirect would be beneficial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:IAR)

Comment: this is not just one event, but the coverage has stretched over months. The "events" themselves involve world leaders, Supreme Court nominees, FBI directors, etc. Unlike Trump orb, not just part of popular culture, but of politics as well. Meets  per review of available sources. This is probably 0.1 in Trump orbs (an article on which still exists, damn it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per Masem's persuasive argument; and , which despite all the sources cited, this fundamentally fails as gossip in fast moving news cycle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: If the best rationale to keep is it survived the first AfD, the closer is going to have an incredibly easy decision to make. This is an article created as a consequence of  and is a fine example of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)