Deletion of International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis

Comment: Well-sourced to reliable sources. The amount of sourced information is well beyond what could reasonably be merged. Moreover, while the nomination cites MOS:LINK, MOS:FLAG, these are as their names suggest style issues, not reasons for deletion. Claims that this is a quotefarm or soapboxing are unpersuasive. I invite anyone who think otherwise to explain which of the five issues listed in  are at all relevant to this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: Well I forgot to mention that the abundance of sources for the reactions is a function of how the news media works, and is not a reflection of how #NEWS|Wikipedia sees things. Of course there is a whole category created for international reactions, and these all seem to be a feature of Wikis where editors are hungry to contribute by copying stuff off the internet and dumping it here. But, as #NEWS|Wikipedia is not the news says:Wikipedia is also not written in news style... 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. And plenty of |other stuff exists on WP. You start reading through those and I bet you won't last more than 10 minutes before dying or falling asleep out of boredom from routine repetition from the rhetorical condemnations and condolences. Why don't you try Wikisource or Wikiquote or even Wikinews? That's what #NEWS suggests we do: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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Per , I don't think we need to mention the official reaction of every country that made one, and I really don't think it needs its own separate article. Quite a few of the responses don't seem notable to me, just one or two sentences condemning Russia's actions and calling for a peaceful conclusion. The paragraph in the 2014 Crimean crisis article adequately summarises the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)