Talk:Evangelical Church of the Deaf

Redirection without discussion
This article was deleted without any discussion and although it was "redirected" to United Church of Canada, none of the content from it was actually incorporated into that article. Please discuss it here if you wish to get rid of this article. Thank you, Carolynparrishfan 20:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Prod for deletion
I have removed the prod for deletion from 12/21/06. I wonder to myself, why was no attempt made to leave a note on this talk page, when there is a plea for someone to do so if they want to prod? As noted on the talk page, (1) this article has already been deleted once w/o an AfD, and restored, (2) there is content, it was lost with the last deletion, and from myself (3) as a church primarily serving the deaf community, this is a notable church. Pastordavid 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pastordavid; in fact there is no need to left messages on this talk page, because the reason for deletion is described on the prod template itself. Instead, it is good to inform authors of the article, and I did it (look at the Carolynparrishfan talk page). Furhermore this article has been never deleted (see ), only redirected. And there was no special content there over what is there now; look in the history of the article, please. Finally, also your last claim is hardly believable, there are lots of churches serving special communities without being notable enough to be here.


 * Normally I would nominate it for AfD immediately, but because pastors have much to do around Christmas, I am ready to wait a few days until you find a proof of notability. But please do not remove deletion templates without reason next time - it usually leads to a quick AfD, while PROD gives you a few days time to work on the article. Merry Christmas.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that there was no need to leave a talk here, and I did see that you left a post on the originators talk page. However, I feel that - because there was a request here if you felt the need for a prod - that it would be in the interest of civility to leave a notice of your intent before you did it.  I in no way meant to say that you did not follow the letter of the prod procedure.


 * I was mistaken to say that it was deleted, I was writing quickly.


 * I removed the prod tag because I disagree with the deletion -- I thought that was the correct procedure. Please advise me if I handled that inappropriately.


 * I'll make you a deal: let me get through the weekend and I will look for outside evidence of notability. If I find none, I'll put a prod on it myself.  And a merry Christmas to you as well.  Pastordavid 19:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, let's do it this way. - I proded it per the trainwrecked mass AfD this week - the majority wished to challenge those churches, who do not show marks of notability. So I think the case is clear and no need to discuss it here. Best,--Ioannes Pragensis 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No longer an orphan
Was suprised to see there wasn't an article about Bob Rumball in Wikipedia already! So I went ahead and created one (a learning experience - I came here looking for info on him actually, wasn't expecting to have to research it myself). Anyway, since it's no longer an orphan, I'm going to remove that tag. &rarr; mrs smartygirl &larr; | Talk 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)