Deletion of International response to Hurricane Katrina

Comment: Simply put: #NEWS. This information is excessively detailed to the point of uselessness; does anyone anywhere need to know that, to pick a random example, 'Guatemala offered 135 flooding and sanitation experts', or 'Hungary pledged $5,000 and offered to send a Special Search and Rescue Team, and also five doctors.'? The most relevant and significant aspects of the international response are listed in the main Hurricane Katrina article, as is appropriate; these articles go far beyond that, and are simply not needed. Much of the same is also true of the 'international response to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake' article, which should be merged back into its parent article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per . Yes, lots of countries and organisations gave aid following these disasters. We make sufficient note of that Hurricane_Katrina#International_response|here and 2005_Kashmir_earthquake#International_response|here. That's encyclopedic, but exhaustive country-by-country lists are not. The average reader is interested that help was offered, not in a detailed breakdown of its particulars
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: only responding to the main nom, you may want to split out the other articles). Well sourced article supporting a |notable event. Is too large to merge into the event article. Contains useful information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I don't see how  is relevant here.  That refers to violating NPOV by giving undue weight to some points of view or to some verifiable facts, relative to other points of view or facts.  I don't see any violation of NPOV here.  And even if there were a violation of NPOV here, violation of NPOV is never a reason for deletion -- NPOV violations should be fixed by editing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)