Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Autonomous Astronauts


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was No Consensus. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Association of Autonomous Astronauts

 * (View AfD)

Notability not shown or asserted. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not actually a space activist organization, but an art collective in the vein of situationism, Fluxus, The Yes Men and so on, masquerading as a space activism organization. As such they are deliberately obscurantist. Obviously needs a complete rewrite. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They appear to be connected to the Abandon All Art "movement" which is traced back to the K Foundation, Bill Drummond, and The KLF/Time Lords, to be more specific. For all that they seem to have an at least partially serious anarchist perspective on space travel, but I'm not convinced that it began that way. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the Science & technology tag to Fiction & the arts then. ~ trialsanderrors 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest keeping it. Label it as 'Court Jester Material'. OK, I'm ignorant of broader Wiki policy. John August.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Note, I've given it a proper intro, so at least you can understand what it actually is (vs. what it purports to be); two of the three sources I've used are print magazines. There are also several results on Google Books and A9. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable group. Cites are to website or fringe magazines. Edison 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - even if the group isn't incredibly notable, I think the article is well written enough to be kept (however it could always be expanded ...). Danielfolsom 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "even if the group isn't incredibly notable, I think the article is well written enough to be kept"...What? The most important criteria of inclusion is notability!!!!!--Nick Y. 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The militarism of space is an issue of serious concern. This group appear to be notable within the sphere of interest in which it operates and I value the way in which Wikipedea opens my mind to new ideas. Whilst possibly bring an element of humour to the subject, that is nevertheless a valid approach in the situationalist art / activist worlds (I guess - not being an artist myself). The article seems perfectly readable to me too, though there are always more experienced wikipedians that can help tidy things up. Paddedrock 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent reliable sources, very limited notability. Eluchil404 09:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Dhartung; there are sources, whose reliability might be questioned, but I think that fringe magazines are a acceptable reasonable source for an article like this. I'd prefer a merge, but where to? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep the AAA received coverage in the Daily Telegraph and The Observer, both of which are national newspapers in teh UK. It might take a while for me to find the exact dates tho. Notability etc can be added as well - surely the best thing would be to place a call for a rewrite/addition of info rather than a call for deletion? John Eden 16:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.