Deletion of Exopolitics (4th nomination)

Comment: Article is essentially |original research. Do not be fooled by the supposed sourcing. Many of the statements are |synthesized out of whole-cloth to try to create some idea that there is a coordinated concerted "exopolitical effort" underway. There isn't. Note the over-the-top language and the bizarre use of the term light year. Not only is it original research, it's also a |soapbox for the kind of intellectually backwater rhetoric employed by the woo-woos in these groups. Let them actually get some recognition beyond News-of-the-Weird spots and their own orchestrated "press conferences" and we'll create an article on the subject. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrosociobiology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:SOAP)

Comment: Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: lacking reliable sourcing as to the existence of the topic's subject matter ("political relations between humans and extraterrestrial civilizations"), the bar for establishing the notability of the ''study'' of this apparently non-existent subject-matter is raised considerably (not exactly like, but by no means completely unlike, a  as a topic), and I do not think that the marginal sourcing passes this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)

Comment: The idea seems to have attracted mainstream attention, and while the name ''exopolitics'' is not universally used to describe this idea, it seems as good a name for it as any, and does have mainstream use so the arguments at  don't apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: It seems appropriately |verifiable, |reliably sourced, and |neutral for now, though it will require continued attention as it was a crank magnet in the past. And the redirect was labeled {{tl|R with possibilities}}; it seems a little strange to view unprotecting that as out-of-process, though going through DRV would have been better. I suppose it would still be possible to review the draft in DRV, but we seem to be doing it here instead, so I don't see any point in shifting to a different forum; in that sense, unlike Artichoker, I don't view the new AfD as premature
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NPOV)