Flower of Life (geometry)

Flower of Life (geometry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already deleted once before because of a lack of reliable sources which actually declaim this shape as special and then recreated out-of-process (there was never a proper deletion review), this new article on the same corrupt subject suffers from even worse problems than the previous one. It promotes a non-notable fringe theory by Drunvalo Melchizadek that has received zero independent notice of the kind we require for stand-alone fringe articles. jps (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G4 - I remember this one, just pure drivel that had fake citations that failed verification. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are plenty of sources to support this topic. If the article needs work it should be improved, not deleted. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of multiple (or any) WP:RS discussing this in a manner that would make it meet WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if there are sources independent of Drunvalo Melchizadek that identify this figure as the "flower of life" and as notable, what are they? jps (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few, at least showing Melchizadek's name for this ancient symbol has stuck, and is being propagated. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wolfram, Stephen (May 14, 2002). A New Kind of Science. online. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media, Inc. ISBN 1-57955-008-8. OCLC 47831356. {{cite book}}: External link in |others= (help)
• Artifacts of the Flower of LifeAugust 29, 2014Marko Manninen
• Flower of Life: 5Dzine Lesson
• Flower of Life Design in Herod’s Palace

From Google books:

• CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Second Edition, Eric W. Weisstein
• Modern Esoteric: Beyond Our Senses By Brad Olsen
• Meditation and Qigong Mastery By Ricardo B. Serrano
• Sedona: Beyond the Vortex: The Ultimate Journey to Your Personal Place of Power By Richard Dannelley
• Diamond Light Awareness By Iris Barkhuysen
• Ascension Magick: Ritual, Myth & Healing for the New Aeon By Christopher Penczak
• The Lotus and the Lily: Access the Wisdom of Buddha and Jesus to Nourish ... By Janet Conner
• Sedona: Beyond the Vortex: The Ultimate Journey to Your Personal Place of Power By Richard Dannelley
• Aesthetic Cognition and Symbolism: A Hermeneutic Analysis of the "Apprentice ... Doctoral dissertation, B. Marie Brady-Whitcanack, Appendix I: Melchizedek's examples of the flower of life, tree of life, golden spiral,
• Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of ... By Christopher Dunn
• UNIVERSAL TRUTH: Thinking outside the Box:, Book 2 By Dr. Peter C. Rogers,
• Cosmic Connections:: Ancient Knowledge Meets Spiritual Science By Dr. Cheri St. Arnauld
• The Map of the Psyche By Timothy R. Nuske
• You Are a Spiritual Being Having a Human Experience By Bob Frissel
• The Reawakening of Consciousness By Luis Miguel Falcao
• The Devolution of Man By Loren Psaltis
• The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science and Spirituality—Book One By Brendan D. Murphy
• Rune3Master - Into the Depths Brad Lorenz
• Prophecy of Days - Book One by Christy Raedeke

Sorry, blogs don't count as RS. (One of them is partially copied from the Wikipedia entry!!) And the book only has a brief mention, hardly the in-depth coverage required. Please see WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking and see that the tilings listed at Mathworld, for example, only allow for a single instance of the "flower of life" to be considered as one pattern found at the Temple of Osiris in Abydos ([1]) while other patterns (including others found at the same temple) which are explicitly mentioned in our article are declared by Mathworld to be specifically other patterns. (e.g. the Seed of Life). Making this into a redirect to the Temple article, that would be okay, I guess, but I think that this is largely the arbitrary naming scheme adopted by Weisstein for convenience sake rather than an actual name for the figure. Certainly the academic literature is devoid of reference to this tiling with this particular name. As Wikimandia points out, basically every other source is aping Drunvalo Melchizadek because they are true believers in that fellow. jps (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your last argument is a red herring and logically incorrect too, as being a true believer does not imply "aping" Melchidazek and does not prevent somebody from producing external references (otherwise, e.g. regarding the belief of catholic Christians, the relevance of all theological literature from Augustinus to Benedict XVI could be questioned on this base). Here is another source from an (apparently) "true believer" (Ibo Bonilla), who instead of "aping", constructs sculptures 17.8m high referring to the Flower of Life, standing in a prominent place in Costa Rica:

• "Conjunto escultórico: Espiral del Èxito" (in Spanish). iboenweb.com. Retrieved January 17, 2014.

-- Karl432 (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:G4 due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). Tagging it as such. Jbh^Talk 18:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate that, but for some reason there are a number of admins who are refusing to accept the G4 rationale for reasons that are close to baffling. I'm in discussion with one right now who claims that the article is substantially different from the deleted one (it's not). Another removed the G4 notice because it the discussion you mention wasn't conclusive enough! I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, but we may with to ask for a salting or a protected redirect to the article on the Temple of Osiris if we agree to adopt Weisstein's scheme, for example. jps (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, the admins are completely failing on this one. The article has already been deleted twice this year alone, and there's nothing new, just more blog posts. I find many of the offline sources (note - no page numbers) to be very suspicious and likely taken directly from Melchizadek's book. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A speedy deletion has been already declined for this article, so that we need to wait until the end of the 7 days period.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The decline of the speedy deletion tag is unfortunate, but all of the unreliable-sourcing problems that caused the previous deletion are still present, and the out-of-process recreation is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 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 WP:N and WP:RS. 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 WP:RS? 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. WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:NORUSH #leavebritneyalone #hakunamatata. — Smuckola(talk) 08:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a fact that the geometric ornament exists, and that it is called "Flower of Life" at least by some since the 1990s, when an author from the esoteric scene attributed some properties to it which has given some popularity to it. Now, the name is found not only in the original work, but also in examples of available literature not published by the original propagator (see lists above and the references currently in the article). Thus the name exists. The references thus prove the existence of the name and the existence of the concept. The name is also e.g. used by jewellery vendors which have no direct affiliations to the scene (look e.g. at amazon.com for "flower of life" in the department "Arts, crafts and sewing"). Wikipedia's task to keep knowledge about things and concepts, including referencing judging of such concepts without judging itself, as Wikipedia does e.g. for astrology or the virginity of Mary. (Of course, an article like this is subject to changes by propagators of the esoteric beliefs and has to be watched for this.) -- Karl432 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I honestly don't know what you guys are on about when you guys say this shape isn't notable. Surely now that Coldplay's brought attention to the Flower of Life, you are willing to conceed that, yeah, people actually do recognize this shape as that cool thing you could do with circles. This is just getting ridiculous. :| Philip Terry Graham 11:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. At its current form, it is a well-sourced article about a shape and symbol that seems to exist "out there". Zezen (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is part of popular culture, with enough references to prove it, and to show that htis is the common name for it. It should be moved back to the unqualified title. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]