Deletion of Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Comment: These "reactions to" articles are always full of cruft boiler plate statements of "thoughts and prayers" that are not encyclopedic. They have been farmed off of the main page of the event but editors create a  to keep the content on Wikipedia due to . &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK||WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: the reactions have generated sufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet , with sources such as the NYT, CNN, various French and British news outlets. Methinks trying to hold this article to some standard other than  may be motivated by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: There is nothing stopping ANYONE from broadening the scope of the article. How many AfDs have we had so far with the same reasoning for deletion put forward but it be kept due to notability in the end? The reactions meet , and thus this is a valid stand alone article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: These articles, whilst contentious, have majority community support, as evidenced by being routinely kept at AfD. There is no reason this incident is different. This is the deadliest terrorist incident in the US since 2001, deadliest mass-shooting on record and the deadliest attack on LGBT people in modern times The reactions are notable.  does not apply. It states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Easily meets  with a collection of reactions from many notable individuals
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and to help keep main article down to reasonable length. ({{ping|Knowledgekid87
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: as per |Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site.  As tragic as events like the Orlando shoot are, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not some form of social networking service designed to memorialize the fallen or collect offers of sympathy to their loved ones.  The list also has a serious risk for |undue weight as most of the reaction was made before emergency responders even had a chance to remove the bodies, creating a situation where it is pure |speculation as to whether any of these reactions will be notable next week, let alone in the years to come
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:UNDUE||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: but '''do not merge''' - Technically, the subject is notable, but it's not really encyclopedic content per . If the article is deleted, it will be because it's undesirable material, not because it's not notable. For that reason, a merge would be inappropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: These quote farms are a bad idea, and they break policy.  From : {{ex|If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.}}  Create the page on Wikiquote, and link it from the main article.  Wikiquote isn't just for film or television quotations.  If there are other articles like this one, nominate them for deletion, too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTQUOTE)

Comment: the important ones can be in the parent article. The unimportant ones are  going to pass the 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:10YT)