Deletion of Fivefold kiss

Comment: Per , "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to ''why'' the subject may not be notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JNN)

Comment: to Wicca unless multiple reliable sources are added to the article. A search of Google Books http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22fivefold+kiss%22&btnG=Search+Books suggests that the subject of the article is mentioned in a number of books. The keep arguments above are basically personal assertions of "I've heard of it" or "I personally know it is important" and like the article fail to provide multiple citations that are substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There are online sources that are hard to judge, and a book citation lacking a cite to specific pages which document the ritual. Giving the editors who cited the book the benefit of the doubt that it is in the book and that the book is a source satisfying , then it is still not "multiple." Advocates of keeping bear the burden of obtaining a few of the books shown in the Google Books search and improving the article. (edited to mention Google Books search
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This definitely seems to satisfy 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)