Deletion of Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks

Comment: Celebrations" into "Reactions". It does not matter in the slightest which article was created first; the latter is logically the parent article of the former and thus cannot be a content fork. Also, this AfD is a gross  and a rather obtrusive failure to , but with consensus already moving towards a merge here, I guess it's a moot point
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:AGF)

Comment: as a separate article,  with no merges. Yes, a celebration is a reaction, but the "celebrations" story is a distinct controversy in and of itself, with sustained coverage and significant effect beyond the time of the events in question. Much of the coverage in the "Reactions" article is of very generic short-term type, such as condemnations by various heads of state and hightened security measures. Most of this coverage falls under #NEWS category, but there seems to be just enough in the article beyond such short-term coverage to justify keeping it. By contrast, the "celebrations" story had sustained in-depth coverage that lasted months and years after the events, and is still continuing. Examples include http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/theenemyathome.htmhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/860nntcv.asp, http://www.dawn.com/weekly/images/archive/050925/images2.htm, http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35516, etc. (the last one discusses a book that appartently also contains substantial coverage of the event). The issues of balance and neutrality can and should be addressed in the "celebrations" article itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)