Agnostic theism: Moreover the page contains what looks like original research.  The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage.  There are exactly three references on this page; This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999).  Hall, Ronald L. (ed.).  "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism".  International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.  46 (3).  Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188.  doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism.  This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist.  It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error.  Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept.  This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972).  The Christian Agnostic.  Abingdon Press.  ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4
 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism , which has it's own page.  Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim.  Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion .  Shellwood ( talk ) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this not a more general term for this?  Christian agnosticism Alexanderkowal ( talk ) 11:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support - per nom, the topic of the article, being agnostic sects or elements of theist religions, could be written about, however it needs to come from RS and not be WP:Synth Alexanderkowal ( talk ) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - some of the later uses in Google Scholar might be WP:CIRCULAR from people who learned about it from wikipedia but a search of Google Scholar prior to 2005 shows that this is used to describe viewpoints associated with Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley.  So it seems to pass WP:GNG on its own by association with highly notable people.  Psychastes ( talk ) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What a good find!  Unless some other sources turn up to support the stuff that is in the article at present it is going to pretty much need a complete rewrite.  Morgan Leigh | Talk Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fortunately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Psychastes.  I'd rewrite the article if I had full access to those books too.  Oh well.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:14, 25 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep