Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (geometry) (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. And rename to overlapping circles grid.  Sandstein  10:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Flower of Life (geometry)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a weird one. voted to be deleted earlier this year, it wasn't. It's not clear why. The only real references to this term being used to describe a geometric pattern are:


 * one advertisement/blog
 * An extreme fringe webpage, of no notability "I believe the complete ancient flower of life is an inter-dimensional tool, a portal, a stargate, a window into what some call the inter space plains."
 * A likely self-published report from a non-notable new-age workshop
 * A Mathworld entry (the one half-decent source)

This is enough to justify a Wiktionary entry, certainly, but not the article, which is a WP:COATRACK, using the existence of a somewhat-notable pattern to hang a Synthesis of sources, many of which not referring to the flower of life, a huge amount of original research, and a list of unsourced New Age terminology which may - or, more likely, may not be - of any notability.

There are few links to this article, fewer justified.

At the very least, this article needs completely gutted, but if we do that, we run into WP:NOTDICTIONARY. As such, I think we're better off deleting it. We might be able to justify a very brief discussion in tessellation, however. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - it was deleted, but it looks like a user made a copy, and later dumped it back into article space with a slightly different title. It was then required to restore the history of the original article for attribution, but the logs don't quite correspond: it's mangled with Flower of Life (manga) which seems to be where is involved from. Pinging  and . Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not yet checked if this is significantly different than what I deleted, it is very early here. It sure looks familiar. I will check it out after my coffee if another admin does not compare before me. HighInBC 18:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your coffee! My analysis is based on the diff I posted still including the AfD header. What exists now has definitely been significantly edited and in fact already survived a more recent AfD (the one called Flower of Life (geometry) so whether or not it's a copy seems to be moot. But it still might have issues. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay yes, I do have a vague memory of this being userfied and then improved. I suppose this new AfD is the best way forward. HighInBC 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt all titles - fringe, fails WP:NEOLOGISM, so sick of this being recreated by this guy's followers —Мандичка YO 😜 19:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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. There are enough sources out there to meet WP:GNG. Yes, the article and a number of the references are flawed but this is progressively being fixed and meanwhile per WP:NEXIST the deficiencies, some of which are highlighted in this discussion, are not grounds for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, products to sell for money by promising healing powers or whatever. Not the same as WP:RS. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete Rename the mathematics to overlapping circles grid, see discussion below. Currently the article is necessarily poorly-cited WP:OR (hopeful Google searches that fail to pull up any WP:RS notwithstanding) on a WP:FRINGE aspect of supposedly sacred geometry. The arrangement of six circles to create a six-pointed star and a hexagonal array is not remarkable in itself, appearing in a variety of mathematical objects and inevitably in random pieces of art; but the pulling-together of unrelated materials (yeah, even a Da Vinci example, eat your heart out Dan Brown) is totally unencyclopedic. If deletion was already agreed in an earlier AfD I'd say there was probably a mandate for speedy deletion. BTW MathWorld is not necessarily a reliable source; and no, having got the article to GA, we don't want this in Tessellation either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (expanded below Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)) but this article needs to be significantly refocused. It's certainly a known stylistic pattern, like houndstooth or gingham, or maybe a geometric pattern like the Sierpinski triangle or the Mandelbrot set and the sourcing is good enough for that. What's not fine is the prominence we've given the fringe mysticism that's become associated with this. Melchizedek's supposed history stemming back to Egyptian and other culture is highly doubtful, as noted by sources used in this article. We should mention it, but treat it as a WP:FRINGE topic. We repeat Melchizedek's theories right in the lede as though they're scientific fact, but that's way off from what I can tell. But that is not a deletion rationale, it just needs work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if we take out all the supposed history and the fringe theories, what would be left? Even the title is distinctly flaky. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not take out completely, just trim significantly. We could start with Martha Bartfeld's original development of the design in the 1960s, before she fell in with the New Age crowd. We can discuss the historic appearances of the design in various cultures, minus the synthesized implied mysticism. And we can mention the New Age stuff, so long as it's confined to its own section and given due weight and appropriate framing. It's just the "this is a symbol sent by God! there can be no other explanation!" tone that needs to be gone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Martha Bartfeld is NOT a reliable source. As I pointed out in previous AfD, her coloring books are self-published. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a thing, in the end. Good arguments on both sides, but there's a notable core there. Per Ivanvector. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Art history in the lead re-written as "Versions of the pattern have been used infrequently in various of the decorative arts since ancient times, apparently without any specific symbolism being attached to it." Johnbod (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and fine with the rename Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep because WP:DINC. It's clearly WP:RS, and the MathWorld reference convinced me that this is an appropriate name for it. My problem with the article is, like many others have noted, the WP:UNDUE weight on new age mysticism stuff. De Guerre (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to rename/move to overlapping circles grid. I like that name. De Guerre (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Meh. The content is broadly OK, but the title gives undue weight to a coining by a single nutter. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The content is broadly OR and needs chopping, but yes, if we are going to keep this then we need a notable title for it, and we don't seem to have one. It wasn't named until recently, it seems, and no other name seems to have stuck. Is there a decent precedent for creating an article where no reliably sourced name exists? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, I meant, of course subject not content. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep MOVE - Are we going to have this discussion once a month? to overlapping circles grid with geometric material and historical usages without focus on flower of life name. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the delete discussion from last monthThe result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 08:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)) Tom Ruen (talk 10:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for that seems to be that a) the article has been deleted and recreated; b) it's full of OR and has a title sourced to exactly one, not very reliable source. The article contains some mathematics which is really about another topic altogether, which along with the not-very-good-title is causing us all difficulty in identifying what the article is about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a pattern that exists without a name. A non-notable New Age guru dubbed it "Flower of Life" (WP:NEOLOGISM) and his followers push the association. It's full of synthesis and OR.  —Мандичка YO 😜 21:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @ —Мандичка : Curiously, nobody disagrees with us about the synthesis, OR, and lack of a name; and we don't disagree with them that the pattern exists. We just think, however, that lack of WP:RS is grounds for deletion (doh, fails WP:GNG), whereas they think mere existence is enough. We are mandated, I think, to remove all the WP:SYNTH from the article, which will not leave a lot. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A no consensus result isn't exactly a vote of confidence (even if it has the same immediate effect as a keep result). Hopefully this debate won't end the same. clpo13(talk) 23:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in my view the 'no consensus' close was a very bad close. My reading of the discussion was that it was a clear 'keep'. However, accepted practice is not to challenge 'no consensus' closes at DRV. Just Chilling (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * History: The recreation of the article earlier this year was an out-of-process end-run around DRV, but the previous AfD trumps any concern over that hiccup. The MathWorld-liness of the article is perhaps what is most keep-worthy about this piece, but I wonder whether the name "Flower of Life" has become something of a circular citation in the sense that I'm not convinced that Wikipedia itself has not had a hand in promulgating the name "Flower of Life" for this rather prosaic design. Still, we are perhaps getting to the point where we're crossing the threshold from Wikipedia being used as WP:SOAP inappropriately to having to accept that, Wikipedia having been used as WP:SOAP, the outside world has been affected enough for us to have crossed the threshold of notability. As soon as I saw the Cold Play album cover and the associated commentary I knew that things would get confusing. As for content, I would argue that the mathematical "WP:OR" some have pointed to as existing in the article isn't properly original research in the sense that our policy outlines. On the other hand, a lot of the speculation as to "history", ancient temple designs, and the spirituality of sacred geometry is probably best left marginalized per WP:PROMINENCE. I wish there was a good article to merge the mathematical content in this one to, but, alas, I cannot find one. Vesica pisces may come closest. jps (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, but the math stuff is virtually stand-alone wrt the rest of the flowing prose. I wonder if User:David Eppstein could help us out with identifying a mathematics article as a merge target? (If indeed the maths stuff isn't copied from another article already...) Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the "maths stuff", i.e. Construction section, to show the basic geometic relations included in this figure. The Metatron's cube section was moved here as a merge operation from that article which was deleted, Articles_for_deletion/Metatron's_Cube. I also add the math connection there that I could find. My approach to Wikipedia is an inclusionist, so if people are going to create imaginary sacred geometry figures and it gets pulled into popular culture, I figure we might as well offer a small and accurate geometry lesson along the way. The only other place it might belong would be an article like seven overlapping circles grid using sources like this: and . Tom Ruen (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. No offence to the maths, but yes, it does look as if it had multiple origins, as you confirm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This, I think, could be a way forward. Overlapping circles grid seems to me to be a more appropriate title so that we can include all iterations and constructions. Then we could properly WP:WEIGHT the New Age speculation to a subsection of that article which would be more appropriate to its actual treatment in the reliable sources literature. jps (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another usage of this circle pattern I found is in quilting is called diamond-wedding-ring, and the older square grid version was called double wedding ring, and seen at Quilt. I'm not saying that has anything to do with this topic, only that the quilting usage, if properly referenced on wikipedia can be cross-linked, and another reason to find another home for the circle pattern away from the flower of life naming. So as you say an article overlapping circles grid could source both the hexagonal and square circle patterns. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Most of what's left behind would be pure OR, however. I'll modify my !vote accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I attempted a conversion for a potential move to overlapping circles grid, from material in this article. I included a new section for the square lattice variation. It obviously needs more work, but at least it properly refocuses the pattern from the Flower of life material. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename to overlapping circles grid and close. The article as it stands now looks notable, but almost entirely not about sacred geometry mysticism, the subject of the old name. So I think the AfD has become moot and should be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to overlapping circles grid. I'm really glad we finally found the proper name for this thing. Problem solved. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC) IMHO, the article's content looks fairly decent now, though I think I'm still spotting some non-RS references. But it looks to me like the things that we can say about this pattern, based on the reliable sources, justify us having this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If it matters, while I think the deletion discussion was right given the weird history of previous discussions and other issues, the refocus to a better target subject, and the work put into it has justified this being kept. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A rename outcome can certainly be a legitimate result of an AfD. It saves us having to have a move discussion and since the potential target article has been created, it will have to be done by an administrator anyway. jps (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * *Keep, don't rename In Geometry this is a very important pattern, and the name used professionally in the Creative Arts is "Flower of Life". Regardless of the origin of said term, it IS the name of the pattern. If the article really has some unwanted "fringe" content that is not related to geometry, you should delete that or put it in a third article, eg. "Flower of Life (Fringe)" or something to that effect. This article is called "Flower of Life (Geometry)" and as such it should be about this key pattern from Geometry. The other stuff could be put on a page of its own, or in "See Also". The geometry part is perfectly valid and the name of the article is the name actually used in real life situations, ie. professional jargon. This is a pattern so basic and so important that it forms the very basic building block, or skeleton pattern, for multiple other patterns that can be derived from it, see e.g. the page on Girih, especially the image example in the section "Construction". IMHO you will be able to ask any professional working in the Creative Arts anywhere on the globe the question "What is the F.o.L?", and the answer will be this specific geometrical pattern... Some "fringe" person disliked by some Wikipedia editors apparently has coined the term... this is new to me, but even if true we should not dismiss the message out of dislike for the messenger. The subject is fundamentally valid, and important. The name is valid too, as the other names suggested in "rename" posts above will make it impossible for professionals working in Geometry to actually find the pattern article, as you will have invented a name completely without usage. clsc (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (deleted the above, as I have changed my opinion. Will post below. Sorry about comments below that relate to now previous and deleted opinion.) clsc (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia needs is some books that are not self-published from the Creative arts fields you describe that demonstate the usage of the name. But Flower of Life or such names can redirect to a section, like overlapping circles grid within the moved article. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources (albeit not books) which are not self-published exist and are listed in my "Keep" statement below. -- Karl432 (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are sources not connected to the origin of the term, e.g. this (a British newspaper) or this (amazon.com, department "Arts, crafts and sewing"). Especially, the latter source proves the use of the term in commerce. -- Karl432 (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please hold your horses, gentlemen. As for "unsourced New Age terminology", "Synthesis of sources", or "original research" I can't find any of that in the contents of the article we are discussing here. I have personally made recent edits to the article, as have others. Please consider the current article in stead of past versions - not that it's perfect, but it's probably no longer what you think it is. If you have posted above, you might want to give the article (and, perhaps the Talk page too) a fresh look, and re-evaluate. Thanks. clsc (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this now appears to be a SNOW KEEP, you are perhaps urging us all to hold the beasts which are already peacefully eating hay in their stable. Seems a suitably Christmasy note on which to CLOSE THIS AFD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's precisely what this article needed, to be refocused to a neutral presentation of the pattern, its historical appearances and the mathematics behind it, with a tiny section mentioning the New Age philosophy. Well done. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And note that I, the nominator, stated above that I think that the change in focus has meant it should be kept (with a rename, ideally). The article has changed a lot, and is now clearly appropriate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that the page is now basically sound, but as I've learned more about the subject I have also found that the page title "Flower of Life" is misleading, so a rename is (still) appropriate, imho. clsc (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to overlapping circles grid, overwriting the redirect but leaving a redirect here for readers who come looking for information about it under that name, per my comment above and significant improvement to the article while this AfD was running. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to overlapping circles grid, as the page is about that topic, so of course it should bear that name. The "Flower of Life" term; if appropriate, and if noteworthy, could be mentioned in a specific (small) subsection, perhaps with an illustration. F.o.L is a distinct sub-class of the page topic, so of course it should be a subsection title, not the page title. Use F.o.L term only as referring to that specific subclass of the general pattern. Keep disambig page for readers who only know that name - redirect to renamed "overlapping circles grid" page or to F.o.L subsection if extant.  clsc (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good setting-out of the current consensus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename for all the reasons mentioned directly above. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. and name as suggested; the present title is not adequately descriptive,and, as the nom said  , is much too new-Agey for a mathematical object.  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was persuaded by User:Johnbod's argument "It's a thing, in the end." What makes this a really interesting topic is that it clearly is a topic capable of meeting GNG. Yet, despite a variety of AfDs and edits to the article, it is a topic difficult to capture in writing within Wikipedia's requirements. I found a variety of references to the topic, but many seem to need to use quotation marks to refer to it as "Flower of Life," The idea of overlapping circles has been around a long time, so it is intriguing that the English language appears to have not committed to giving the topic a name (due to a perceived need to use quotation marks in "Flower of Life," instead of just flower of life. After a cursory search, the Wikipedia article seems to reflect society's non-unified view of the topic so that the Wikipedia article appears as a disjointed effort to present a cohesive article on the topic. That is not a basis for deletion. In fact, it is a strong reason to keep in hopes that Wikipedian's can assist in cohesively summarizing the body of knowledge on this topic for the benefit of society. There are no reliable sources to support naming the topic "overlapping circles grid", so please do not rename as part of this AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the resistance to the article is that it presents the topic as hard math (geometry) and then ties in theology, philosophy, and/or mythology. The source material I found is not about hard math. Instead, the topic Flower of Life is in discussed in reference to theology, philosophy, and/or mythology. Instead of the article focusing on the math aspects, the article should reflect the source material. I think if the title (e.g. "(geometry)") and the lead lessened the topic's association with hard math, there would be less resistance to the article. So long as the article leads with math and then ties in spirituality, editors will continue to list this article at AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We seem to have reached a consensus for some days now, so could we please move to a SNOW CLOSE, if indeed a week hasn't passed since we began. Thanks, everyone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.