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 no consensus. There's clearly not a consensus to delete, but the rationales for keeping also don't explain why sourcing is sufficient to merit an independent article under our guidelines. I would encourage interested editors to think about whether this topic may be better covered as a list or a disambiguation. Such a discussion falls outside of the scope of AfD and can happen instead on the article's talk page if editors are interested. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing church[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have found nothing on the alleged topic of this WP article, apart from passing uses which seem to rather refer to the Continuing Anglican movement than the alleged general phenomenon the WP article discusses.^[1]^[2]^[3] Already back in 2007, someone asked for sources on this term at the article talk page; none was given since then.
I have also checked the only reference given in the article: it is about the Continuing Anglican movement and not a general phenomenon.
A discussion at the WProject Christianity has concluded that this expression does not exist or was only a synonym of the Continuing Anglican movement.
It seems to be there has been a quiproquo, in that the creator likely either a) thought "continuing church" was a common and universal name, or b) was not aware the page Continuing Anglican movement already existed.
Therefore, I propose this article be deleted, or turned into a redirect (no merge) to Continuing Anglican movement. Veverve (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Winter, R. Milton (2000). "Division & Reunion in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.: A Mississippi Retrospective". The Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-). 78 (1): 67–86. ISSN 1521-9216. In 1944, reunion opponents, rallied by the Southern Presbyterian Journal, called those agreeing with its aims to do everything possible to organize a 'continuing church' if and when the 'inevitable' union with the PCUSA should occur. By 1949 a Continuing Church Committee was raising funds. [..] All the while, predictions continued that whenever union of Southern Presbyterians with their sister Assembly came about, a 'continuing' Southern Church would result. [...] 'Continuing' assemblies of Presbyterians opposed to unions voted by their denominations are well known having been formed in Scotland, Canada, and Australia, and by Cumberland Presbyterians in the U.S. after the majority of their churches were received by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. in 1906.
^ Burt, C. David (2011-01-01). "Chapter 4: An Anglican Uniate Rite?". In Cavanaugh, Stephen E. (ed.). Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments. Ignatius Press. ISBN 978-1-68149-039-7. Basically, they [Forward in Faith] have their feet in both 'official' Anglican Communion and in the 'continuing' church.
^ Watts, Michael (1993). Through a Glass Darkly: A Crisis Considered. Gracewing Publishing. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-85244-240-1. 'In September 1990, at around the time the first women priest were ordained, a group of lay members of the Church of Ireland formed a «continuing Church»; the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite). [...]'

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again, a lack of references is not a reason for deletion. This is a notable topic, and is not restricted to Anglican churches. I have restored the article, which had large slabs of content removed for no reason. St Anselm (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: please provide a source for your claim. As you can see, I have done my own research before starting this AfD and found nothing. And I had removed WP:OR from the article (also, WP:V), which you added back possibly trying to WP:OVERCOME. Veverve (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first reference you provide does not refer to Anglican churches, does it? Interestingly, I am the editor you referred to, who asked for sources in 2007. But that's not a reason for deletion. Anyway, perhaps the word is used more often in Presbyterian contexts: e.g. For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America and The History of the Presbyterian Church in America : The Continuing Church Movement. St Anselm (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source I gave is only about Presbytarianism, and so do the two you provided. The History of the Presbyterian Church in America does not contain the subtitle you added from what I see. In both source you provided, the expression is too vague anyway to know if they are designating a continuous church (an institution that continues to exist, or a tent organisation) or a continuing church (the topic of the WP article). An FCC review (part 1, part 2) does not seem to indicate that "continuing church" in this case has the meaning the WP article gives it. Thus, your sources do not prove the notability of the topic.

In any case, you are asking for a complete change of topic, from an alleged general phenomenon to a purely Presbyterian phenomenon. Veverve (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subtitle is in the Worldcat entry. St Anselm (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When the BBC covers it, other sources will exist. WP:BEFORE failure evident. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be sure, that is covered in Church of England (Continuing). This article is about a wider phenomenon. St Anselm (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I have mentioned that in my rationale (Continuing Anglican movement) twice (check the "§ Other Anglican churches" section). You are confusing topics. Veverve (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 1st choice, or redirect per nom. A normal English phrase which may turn up discussing many historical splits. Not a special term deserving an article, still less the article here. Heaps of dubious OR in the "restored" version. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In several discussions with people in person and online, the phrase "Continuing" has been applied to denominations such as the newly-founded Global Methodist Church. However, there is extremely minimal sourcing from RSs that suggests the terminology merits an article on Wikipedia. If anything, any sources that do come along should be first used in a section of Continuing Anglican movement. If there comes a time when there are more sources discussing a farther-reaching practice, we can make an article. I see some books in the pipeline, again discussing Methodism, that may someday qualify this as a separate article. Until then, the phenomenon is only notable in its relation to Anglicanism or practice by Anglicans. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to add that I have read the Presbyterian sources. The '86 one addressing Canadian Presbyterianism is compelling, but it does not properly define "continuing" so much as it applies the term. The 2015 book is cited, but only just the title. If a quote from that book were to be sourced, I would support a merge rather than a delete sans merge. The Book of Church Order is less than overwhelming, though, and for a denomination with at last count 12 congregations we might be pushing into self-publishing territory with that as a source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy adding sources to the article. Note that the term is enshrined in legislation in the Presbyterian Church of Australia Act 1971. St Anselm (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, as a normal English term, not capitalized & which needs defining in Cl. 18b. This does not help your case at all. Similar wording occurs all the time in corporate etc contexts. See this google search on "continuing partnership". Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this expression really existed the way you described it, you would have no problem finding it defined this way in some dictionaries and encyclopedias of Christianity (there are dozens of them). Instead, you have mostly added your interpretation of primary sources in the article in an effort to WP:OVERCOME. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a lot, mainly in the area of Presbyterianism, where continuing churches are a significant phenomenon, in at least four different countries. (This is partly because I'm Presbyterian myself, so this is what I'm interested in.) I would be OK with this article being refocused and moved to Continuing Presbyterianism if people don't like the Anglican and Presbyterians being lumped together. Editors would do well to search for "continuing presbyterian" in their Google searches too. St Anselm (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Why are we talking about deleting this outright when there are already several "continuing church"-related articles on Wikipedia? Convert it to a disambiguation page that links to Continuing Anglican movement, Church of England (Continuing), Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), etc. Any truly useful content that can't be merged into an existing article should be moved to a new page for the group/denomination in question (as StAnselm suggests in the previous comment) and then added to the disambiguation list. Jdcompguy (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and both the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Presbyterian Church of Australia were for a while called the "Continuing Presbyterian Church" in secondary sources. St Anselm (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again StAnselm, you have no secondary RS defining the concept of "continuing church" the way you did, you are making a SYNTH and drawing your own conclusions. Veverve (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Have you read all the new references I added to the article? St Anselm (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw them. Veverve (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as evidence has been given of Presbyterian as well as Anglican continuing churches, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: the question is not whether or not some denominations use the expression "continuing". The question is whether or not the alleged concept that would encompasse the whole Christendom of "continuing church" notably exists and is defined as such in the summary of that article. So far, no secondary RS defining "continuing church" this way has been provided to prove this existence and notability. Veverve (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is about a real phenomenon, where certain congregations stand aside from denominational mergers. A case of which I know, not mentioned in the article is congregational churches in England, which declined to join United Reformed Church. In contrast "continuing Anglicans" are liable to be churches that opted out of the main episcopal/Anglican church, regarding it as not keeping its original doctrines. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the Congregational Federation. St Anselm (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriately referenced, topic is notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More than a couple editors have voted keep on the principle that this phenomenon is notable, but it does not appear notable under this terminology. If there is a keep, we need to find a term that is relevant specifically to non-Anglican denominations, rather than SYNTHing the term from Anglicanism onto Presbyterianism (which seems to be the direction this article is taking). ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Nuff said. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLionHasSeen: An WP:ITSNOTABLE does not help. Veverve (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.