Deletion of International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Comment: per ; Wikipedia is not a page in which to replicate news reports, especially when they can all be summed up without loss of information as "Many countries and international organizations have expressed sorrow and condolence", as the main article currently does
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS,. The article is nothing but a fork of 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#International filled with all kinds of synonyms for "sorrow" and "condolences
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Inherently unencyclopedic. It's a list of flags and quotes, all of which are completely typical expressions of solidarity and condolence that are given after any disaster. They don't belong in the main article, and they definitely do not need to be in a article of its own. |Bringing other articles into this debate is irrelevant. Also per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAP)

Comment: Frankly, a list of generic expressions of condolence x from random government official y in random country z is not notable.  Direct response in Poland and Russia is relevant here, but the rest can be summarized easily with "representatives of nations across the world expressed their condolences..." Blatant  issue, but as always, that part of the policy never seems to apply
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Wikipedia is not the news (). Every death of officials has "international response" i.e. condolences etc. I am getting tired of . We are losing control here I think. PS Strong keep without any arguments means nothing to me. This is not a vote we are having here but a discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: with  - this information is |verifiable in |reliable sources and would be part of the main article were it not too large. It would be difficult or impossible to reconstruct later and is likely valuable to historians, researchers, etc. in the future - not to mention journalists right now. Furthermore it is not likely to be a source of problems (spam, vandalism, etc.) and thus is relatively benign
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: I am amazed by the number of  'arguments' which have been given for deletion; that it is 'predictable', 'boring' diplomacy is of no relevance to keeping or deleting this article. It has been said that this type of articles is unencyclopedic, inappropriate to Wikipedia but we have plenty of articles of this type so it must not be the case, the format of the article should probably be revised but it's not a matter for this AFD; the question is whether the existence of this article is justified. The incident is highly exceptional, rare in recent history are cases where a president and several persons important to the governing of a country died in an incident, this has major national and international consequences; and the reaction to such events is directly relevant and clearly an encyclopedic subject. The notability of the subject is evident and the sole policy which could apply is , but it has not been demonstrated that the policy prevented its existence. And it does not, it is clear that the underlying event is durably notable, and this article is an important part of the coverage of the event, it is not 'routine news reporting'. While this could be covered in the article on the event, the Wikipedia:Article size|article size guidelines suggest we split it in a separate article, so the existence of this article is justified and not prevented by any policy, and merge is not an option in this AFD for this reason too. Merging thus is a purely editorial matter in this case and should be discussed on the talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The vast majority of the entries are entirely predictable and repetitive ("the monarch/president/prime minister sent condolences ..."). The comments are simply  and add no value to Wikipedia. The response in Poland and Russia should be incorporated into the main article. The rest is listcruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL)

Comment: most of the votes to keep are  violations (not that that will stop the closing admin from doing vote counting anyway, in violation of wikipedia's deletion policies). this articles content could be added to the article on the crash itself with a single sentence - "countries around the world expressed their remorse". of course i also oppose merging. merging is only useful if people would search for "International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash". like it makes since to merge and redirect an article on the pilot into the article on the crash but an article on international responses?  no one is going to normally do a search anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)