Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Normandy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. GRBerry 17:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Project Normandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is said to be a "top secret project." As such it never attracted the attention of any secondary sources. Steve Dufour 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Super-secret covert operations are pretty much by definition non-notable. Unfortunately, the Men in Black and suchlike don't seem to be particularly chatty types or motivated to supply verifiable information. John Carter 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If it is so secret, than it isn't notable, and does not belong on Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do think this is notable, however there simply is to little information to warrant an article. It is very interesting though. Maybe this could be incorporated into an already existing article on Scientology Controversies or something. Elhector 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've decided to change my vote as I've found a lot more information the subject. I'm working on rewriting the article now to include some more of the info and sources that I'm finding. Elhector 23:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it can not be a "controversy" until someone else finds out about it. Steve Dufour 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can be found. With little verifiable info available for this secret project, even if it's true, it could still be considered original research.--Alasdair 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut feeling, knowing something about the anti-Scientology movement, is that the typewritten document presented as a source is genuine. However the project is non-notable since it didn't make the newspapers. Also the statement that its goal is to take over the city of Clearwater, Florida seems to be original research. Steve Dufour 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was a news story a long long long time ago, and it was pretty much a flash in the pan. My uncle told me about. The newspaper that covered the story went out of business a year or two afterwards, it was a little independent paper for the area. I'd say let's just get rid of the article. I think Steve is right, we're not going to be able to dig up any more info on this and there simply isn't enough info existing to keep it around. Elhector 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that a report that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1980 for national reporting is flash in the pan. AndroidCat 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks AndroidCat, I was ignorant to the Pulitzer Prize thing. I'll go back and check out the updated article to see what I think about it with the updated info. I have a feeling my opnion on this article might change now. Is it ok for me to change my vote here if after I finish reading the updated article I feel like it is in fact notable?Elhector 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding the reference to the article AC. That improves its situation a lot. It is still not clear to me, even after reading the newspaper story, if the project really took place and if its goal was really to "take over" the city. Steve Dufour 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that a report that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1980 for national reporting is flash in the pan. AndroidCat 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was a news story a long long long time ago, and it was pretty much a flash in the pan. My uncle told me about. The newspaper that covered the story went out of business a year or two afterwards, it was a little independent paper for the area. I'd say let's just get rid of the article. I think Steve is right, we're not going to be able to dig up any more info on this and there simply isn't enough info existing to keep it around. Elhector 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut feeling, knowing something about the anti-Scientology movement, is that the typewritten document presented as a source is genuine. However the project is non-notable since it didn't make the newspapers. Also the statement that its goal is to take over the city of Clearwater, Florida seems to be original research. Steve Dufour 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but only if the Pulitzer prize is added and documented. That would be unquestionable notability--and if so, other accounts could be found., I dont assume that it can not be documented when nobody reports even trying DGG (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article sat there for a year without anyone trying to provide any sources. WP has over 400 Scientology articles so I guess sometimes one falls through the cracks. Steve Dufour 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteLooking at the page just now, I didn't find any added reference to a 1980 Pulitzer prize winning article.Weak keep I voted to delete, then found this AP article was in this morning's paper [1]. It's not so top secret anymore, although this article needs to be better sourced. Please note that the "St. Petersburg times article" is actually a link to an sptimes.com "web report", rather than something that was printed in that paper. Worse yet, clicking on to that web report froze my computer... perhaps long enough for conspirators to access all information inside. Mandsford 12:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was originally published as an 18 page special report in the St. Petersburg Times on real dead trees. If you clicked on the original PDF sptimes.com link, it is 18 megabytes and takes a while. I've increased the warning. (I'd prefer not to include that link, but it is the source for the compressed version 904K version.) As you can see from that recent AP article, because of the byzantine and confusing "Operations" and "Projects" that Scientology used, few stories refer to Project Normandy by name. AndroidCat 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For a stub, that cite should be notable enough. (The link is to a PDF containing a series of several connected print articles, rather just a single story.) If the article is ever expanded, it could include the many articles that discuss and detail Project Normandy, but don't use Scientology's code name for it. AndroidCat 15:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the second source had been in the article I would not have nominated it for deletion. However, there is still some information that the article needs, it seems to me. Like, when did the project start? How long did it last? How many people took part? And, most important, was it successful? Steve Dufour 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I rewrote the article a little bit, added some more info that I though was useful from the Gabe Cazares article. Let me know what you guys think. It's just a rough draft so far. I'm going to work on it a some more tonight.
- 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.