Deletion of International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks

Comment: WP:CONTENTFORK, . I never understood the reasoning for keeping an article like this. These are generic statements of support of France and we don't need to catalog them. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: this article is useful, people may want to know what Bashar al-Assad said about the attacks, or what Hezbollah said. It is also well sourced, and is |notable. The ''#PrayForParis'' and the '':File:Peace for Paris.svg|Peace for Paris'' symbol is also a bit reminiscent of ''Je suis Charlie'' is it not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Given that there was consensus not to include this content in the main article, this article is a | ({{small|"Since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as 'POV' except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per  – Article is essentially "my condolences for what happened" repeated 50+ times. It's not encyclopedic in the least. Same goes for other similar articles. The notion of using precedent articles is not helpful here. The actual content needs to be re-evaluated and only substantial actions should be kept. The only viable argument for keeping these types of articles is that they indirectly show the status of international relations. Take that how you will
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: In my experience this reaction page is quickly getting out-of-hand compared to the earlier tragedies. This is the longest list of little flags I have ever seen. It is already even longer than the Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. I also supported '''renaming''' the article Talk:International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks#Requested move 14 November 2015|elsewhere. Much of the content is unconstructive and essentially redundant. However, there are valid reasons for having a / article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF||WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: Any major catastrophe nowadays attracts statements of compassion and support by international leaders as a matter of course. Reproducing them at length violates . To the limited extent such statements are out of the ordinary, they should be mentioned in the main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)