Deletion of Flower of Life (2nd nomination)

Comment: this article has five sources. First, obviously, Melchizedek, who is a primary source. Second, a self-published website that I cannot see passing as . Then there was the reference to the SciFi channel program - I found it on YouTube and it says nothing whatsoever about these symbols or even the Great Osiris Temple, but is entirely about the Sphynx. So that's a total fail. Then there is the mention in the German dictionary of symbols, that is offline, and no page is even cited. We need  - is it even discussing the Flower of Life or just the symbols themselves? Additionally this reference is used one time to support the statement that the Flower of Life was not a term previously used. Finally there is the work from 1904 that obviously says nothing whatsoever about the "Flower of Life" concept. So I really would like to know how anyone could possibly claim, based on these references, that this topic meets the 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:VERIFIABILITY||WP:GNG)

Comment: with cleanup which has been somewhat done.  This article is good information from RSes, though it has been said that it needs more secondary sources.  People have commented here, linking to the important core policies of Wikipedia which describe the criteria of encyclopedic content as is provided by secondary sources.  Thanks for doing that, and for having already cleaned it up.  This content is good and plentiful and well established, the subject is important and popular, and it needs to be preserved somewhere even if it was merged like with a biography of Drunvalo Melchizedek.   and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism optimistic eventualism in this case.  Deletionism sucks; deletion is not an answer to fixable issues, and AfD is not a valid (even if sometimes coincidental) basic method of attempting to explore or establish them. The talk page is. Thanks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:NORUSH)

Comment: Some of the information in this article seems valuable and could possibly be merged with another related article. By itself, the article doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria for .   &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)