Deletion of Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings

Comment: Per OP and . Predictable statements of condolences and condemnation are of little enduring encyclopedic value. In the rare cases where a reaction stands out as unusual, or unexpected, then they can be covered in the main article or in the bio of the person who said it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: A discussion already going on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_to_do_away_with_including_world_leader_responses_to_terrorist_incidents here. Very premature and hasty nomination that does not follow 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of quotes or a list of news headlines. There's not sense of lasting notability here, just platitudes and condolences.  clearly counterindicates this by saying "{{tq|Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.}}"  specifies that lists must be notable, which this is not. Go put this on Wikinews
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LISTS)