Talk:Continuing church

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Continuing?

This article needs some references! It is a matter of debate whether some of the denominations mentioned here are "continuing" - not to mention whether they consider themselves to be continuing. The idea that the "Presbyterian Church of Australia was formally created by the Basis of Union" is also debatable. StAnselm 11:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia is not a continuing church formed after the Uniting Church. Although a number of former Methodist Church of Australasia members joined it after 1977, it has existed since about 1945. I got caught by that one. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

@StAnselm: since you really want to go throught the talk page, let us do it. Do you believe WP:V and WP:OR apply to this article and that therefore its controversial information that have been unsourced for years can be removed? If not, what makes this article so special that it avoids WP's policies? Veverve (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on? What's controversial? Is there a statement you think is wrong? There were when I made my talk page comment in 2007, but they were fixed, even though references weren't added. St Anselm (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is controversial, from the terminology to the examples: it is WP:OR until proven otherwise with WP:RSs. We cannot even discuss the content's legitimacy, as we have no secondary RS to rely on. Veverve (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: please do not act as if you did not know what the problem was: the topic as defined in the lede is nowhere to be found, neither in the body of the article nor in a source in the lede. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add a citation needed tag when you had already added a synth banner? St Anselm (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To request that a source defining what the topic is be added. Veverve (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the source

@StAnselm: All I see in the source is a specific dispute between two denominations. The only thing loosely related thing mentioned in the source is: "[They] asserted that they were the continuing church that hupheld historic Presbyterian doctrine and policy, while the others were seceders". This is pretty lackluster for a definition. Veverve (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what "continuing church" means. What do you think it means? St Anselm (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what it means! Sources clearly stating "a continuing church is XYZ" or "the term 'continuing church' designates XYZ" are nonexistent. This is why I had proposed this article for AfD. Veverve (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do you at least see that the first sentence of the article is consistent with the cited source? St Anselm (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But to use it to give a definition is quite an extrapolation from the source. Veverve (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]