Talk:Project Normandy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Normandy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

	Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Notable?

I'm not sure if secret plans deserve encyclopedia articles. BTW saying that its goal was to "take over" Clearwater seems like original research. Steve Dufour 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is now nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Normandy Steve Dufour 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article will survive. However the way it is written doesn't make it clear what it's about. Is it about a secret plan or the document that explains the plan? Thanks. Steve Dufour 04:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten/reorganized the article a little. I believe the article is clear enough now that it's obvious that it is about the document and the plan. I don't think there is any issue overing both in the article :-) Let me know what you think. Elhector 18:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)