Deletion of Flower of Life (geometry)

Comment: Hello, friends, and thank you to those who've given constructive feedback. The deletionist crusade is unconscionable and embarrassing to the community.  I am gratefully respectful of the detailed rationales given when citing policies about demonstrating  and .  That has been instructive and motivational, and I'm grateful for them guarding and honing our Wikipedia craft.  However, the response to this of wanting to delete it, is not.  It's an aggressive deletionist agenda.  Especially while the article is under development and the preponderance of sources may require expertise and drive to locate.  The given references already existing in the article right now (more than the minimum number required just to keep the article, if you lack a vendetta against it), already demonstrate that the figure is present across countless ancient cultures of the world.  That fact alone demonstrates a reasonable expectation that printed, and possibly old, sources exist.  And the given references in the article demonstrate that Druvalo's interpretation is only one concept, but is nonetheless widespread throughout culture, and just happens to have recently given us a handy dandy name for it. Furthermore, this is not at all the same article that once was.  It was a hot mess that I would have deleted half of.  I am a non-deletionist who routinely deletes huge amounts of articles and leaves warnings in order to save the articles. Nonetheless, I repeat that the subject's notability is already substantially demonstrated. People here within this discussion are literally saying that printed books don't exist, which were already references within the article at the time they wrote such comments yesterday.  They're saying the ones in the article don't exist, and they're replying to the list of books above to helpfully inform us that those, too, fail to exist.  If you think the sources in the article or in this thread truly fail notability, can you enumerate each one and the reason why, as per the policy of ? That would help the non-deletionists continue to improve the article about the already-notable and non-deletion-worthy subject further. And it would help to improve us as Wikipedians, as the proverbial iron sharpens iron. Even those sources which are works of fiction, serve to demonstrate the notable culture significance of Drunvalo's concept and name of "Flower of Life", let alone the other sources which demonstrate geometric principles and other things.  And they're saying if they can't find more reliable sources within a cursory scan of google while holding an agenda against doing so, then it doesn't exist and cannot exist.   ORUSH #leavebritneyalone #hakunamatata
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ICANTHEARYOU||WP:NORUSH)

Comment: There have been three phases in the evolution of the subject. Firstly we had multiple occurrences on/as historical artefacts. These are probably unlinked with likely different meanings. Then New Age author Melchizedek took a shine to this symbol, gave it a catchy name and imbued it with doubtful mysticism. The third phase has been the subsequent 15 years or so when it escaped into the wild and there have been widespread appearances of this pattern in popular culture, fashion, jewellery etc. mostly with the appellation 'Flower of Life'. To take just one example, a Google search for "Flower of Life" produces pages of products of this pattern and with this name. What we have now is a widely used definitive geometric pattern with a generally accepted name. Oh, and before I forget, there are enough sources out there to meet . Yes, the article and a number of the references are flawed but this is progressively being fixed and meanwhile per  the deficiencies, some of which are highlighted in this discussion, are not grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST)