Deletion of International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks

Comment: unencyclopaedic #IINFO|collection of |sweet nothings, rhetorical soundbytes and |quotefarm best |summarised on the principal article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:MEMORIAL||WP:QUOTEFARM||WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: precedent says "international reaction" articles are mostly kept if they are legitimate forks from articles that have become to big to include a full scope of the sources and reactions. '''Merge''' back to article is impractical, as it was forked out for a reason. Nominator needs to read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: We are an encyclopedia not |a directory or |memorial site. The list is Template:Over detailed|over detailed. http://abcasiapacific.com/news/2011-07-23/norway-bomb-shooting-attacks-shock/2807220?section=world This may be an appropriate level of coverage - while even http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/norway-attacks-world-leaders-violence this may be too much. The article as it stands is not doing a service to our readers, as it is not sifting through the material and picking out the important points - it is expecting our readers to work through a very long list of quotes and data which at around 4,000 words would take an average reader around 20-30 minutes to read, which is too long for the importance of the material
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: data like this is best covered in context of the incident itself and in  weight. Don't need to put unnecessary weight on all the punditry and various POVs
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: as . The section was spun off from the main article to accomodate the international reactions. The text is very well referenced. It is problematic to mention some of the reactions and redact some, because all are surely valueable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: per . And just per common sense; most of these are not notable. EU, UN, NATO, neighboring countries, maybe English-speaking superpowers. Not Chile, Singapore or Lithuania
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Retaining only the "outstanding" responses, as some have said, is problematic. Who decides which responses are outstanding? , and this is a much better place to keep the responses than cluttering up the main article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PAPER)