Deletion of In Event of Moon Disaster

Comment: I'm a bit concerned about the number of people who have been simply saying that the article is "|interesting" and "notable." First of all, the notability of the subject matter has never been disputed. More than that, though, the fact that so many people are saying those exact two things (and nothing else) is a bit worrisome. Why are so many people saying the same thing over and over, rather than making unique contributions? Also, there's a conspicuous absence of relevant policy discussion in this AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING)

Comment: I've noticed that almost every "keep" argument posted above follows the same basic rationale, namely that the article is |interesting, that |articles of "lesser importance" exist on Wikipedia, and that it deserves to be on Wikipedia |simply for being a historic document, all of which are considered |arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I'd like to comment that nobody questions the notability of this document. Clearly, it's a historic document. However, #REPOSITORY|Wikipedia is not the place for historical soruces; that's what Wikisource is for. Furthermore, there is simply no need to have this as a separate article. Any relevant information can easily be put into the Apollo 11 article and the speech can be moved to Wikisource. That would be the way to go with this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING||WP:WAX||WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING||WP:ATA||WP:NOT)

Comment: Perhaps because this is getting so much attention, in particular from being covered by reddit, that says something about the standards for what should be a stand alone article. The reddit exposure would not have happened without this being stand alone. Perhaps in the shifting world of social bookmarking/linking the encyclopedia standards for what is stand alone should shift also? I also agree that the current title for this article does not satisfy , I would rename it to be more encyclopedic but keep it stand alone and include a mention of it in the Apollo 11 article. This article is making me reconsider the degree to which rich topics like Apollo 11 can be handled in one long article versus links to smaller related but separate articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)