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)