Deletion of Reactions to the September 11 attacks

Comment: A series of y noms with zero  done at all by the nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: the notability is far from questionable, and merging is a matter of a merging discussion, not an AfD (although I probably wouldn't merge, due to length). I note also that this was an arguably Y nomination, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInternational_reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks&type=revision&diff=690815403&oldid=690814094 this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As evidenced by the essay linked above, deletion discussions on this and similar topics have the potential for proper debate free of precedent and prejudice. However, in this case I think neither side has done much research. The nominator, {{u|Kenobi5487}}, wants us to believe this should be merged with "the main article" without specifying what article he means (is it September 11 attacks, or Aftermath of the September 11 attacks?). The sources provided by {{u|Knowledgekid87}} (which are not cited in the article) seem to deal with the institutional and military response that is discussed in an entirely other article: Aftermath of the September 11 attacks. One more thing, and something {{u|Fences and windows}}' essay should address, is that reactions like this seldom have a  effect. Case in point is the condolences presented by Saddam Hussein of Iraq as documented (though unsourced) in the nominated article. The legacy of these and other condolences are generally overshadowed by the more tangible aftermath of events
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LASTING)

Comment: Clearly notable responses to a major world event. Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)