Deletion of Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack

Comment: ping|Cmeiqnj}}, I am going to disagree with you on this one, as there are several requests to merge the article.  Additionally, there is a reason that  is not titled "Articles for discussion", although that may be a result
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: to the main article, per  and  as explained above
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: due to  limit for the main article. Special:Contributions/46.200.26.232|46.200.26.232
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE)

Comment: with 2016 Nice attack per . Most of the article consists of sound bites that are mere political rhetoric and of no great importance to the article in terms of the events or its investigation. The content can easily be pruned, and that which is relevant merged back to the parent article. Either way, a merger is unlikely to cause a breach of 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SIZE)

Comment: per  There are a number of substantive reactions beyond the boilerplate condemnations and condolences such as cancellations, impact on financial markets, deployment of security personal and emergency plans, some criticism over security policy, ect. That being said, the reactions are not nearly as numerous or substantive as those listed in other reaction articles such as Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. I believe it would be desirable to discuss whether a merge should occur in a few months, but doing this less than a week after the attack is pointless since coverage is still occurring and the more substantive reactions tend to occur after the boilerplate condolences
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)

Comment: per hat Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which says not to have excessive listings. This is needless repetition of the same basic "this was a horrible event" message. Nothing particularly noteworthy about that. hat Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper also notes that being mentioned in the news doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion within articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:W)

Comment: per arguments of Knowledgekid87, Aidan, and Humberto del Torrejón. Subject clearly passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Can we stop the y nominations every time one of these comes up? There's never been any consensus to delete them, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Keep it and stop with these nominations. It's just wasting everyone's time. Ample reasons have been presented here and elsewhere for a standalone article. You're not getting anywhere with these deletion nominations. It's not going to change. Stop
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)