Deletion of International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting

Comment: Quote farm of routine condolences. Notability is beside the point, this is a matter of  - we are not a newspaper and we do not record every world leader's utterances, especially if they are nothing out of the ordinary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: nbsp; This seems to be a fad to nominate for deletion expressions of the milk of human kindness.&nbsp; The nominator states in the nomination that the page, "has...served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page", which is a statement that there are both unimportant and important reactions in this article.&nbsp; To the extent that there is anything indiscriminate, this is something handled under diting policy, not under eletion policy, and a rather ordinary editing problem of UE.&nbsp; The remedy for those who don't want to read, "France...offers the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers", is: ''Don't read the article.''.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E||WP:D||WP:DUE)

Comment: major event, well sourced, ample other such articles, legitimate . Point where I slightly agree with criticism: the structure of the article was sub-optimal. Hence I have started improvements. Others are welcome to help out
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: Well-sourced  page of a notable event, where the main page would be too large if the information was all included there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: is anyone seeing  and  of international reactions to Charlie Hebdo specifically? Are the Cambodian, Georgian, Greek, Brazilian, or Mauritian referred to by any recent sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING||WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE)

Comment: this was actually on the news recently. Almost every article beginning with "International reactions to..." has now been to AfD, and hundreds (ok at least 50) have been kept, with only half a dozen deleted, I think that speaks for itself really. you may want to see eactions to... articles as well. I suppose some people don't like people condemning terrorist attacks, but I think these are important
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: WP:NOT|indiscriminate collection of information and does not meet . Consists of  materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: It's a well-sourced article. Anything related to the attack and published by reliable sources can be taken into to the article. Considering , we can not take these reactions into the main article and hence we need to keep this one. Btw, it's better to avoid Wikipedia:Other stuff exists|other stuff-type arguments
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:TOOBIG)