Deletion of Fatimiya Sufi Order

Comment: I'm not seeing how the group meets the standards in 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: You're really not getting anywhere with the back and forth on this issue. With all due respect, you're simply not going to convince experienced editors according to your lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's simply no point to it. It has been explained to you over and over again to no avail. I suppose it comes with experience. I would like to invite you to consider reading and reviewing the policies on |verifiability and |reliable sources. Once you familiarize yourself with the policies, you may have a better understanding and be able to clearly identify what is acceptable on Wikipedia. And what is not. Best regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: As lacking significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. I'm open to changing my !vote if there foreign language sources that my searching missed. See , , and  for more details if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. (and just in case anyone asks: no, I'm not part of a conspiracy against whatever religion this group is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP||WP:RS)

Comment: There is nothing (that I can find) that either supports or denies oversight of the Propaganda Anonymous blog. It is, however, a blog. Blogs lacking oversight are considered self published. See  and  for more information. Please note that even if we accept that oversight is provided, the sourcing still does not establish notability in accordance with the |general notability guidelines. On another note, it is futile to argue the reputation of Reality Sandwich. Reputation is not among the criteria that establishes notability on Wikipedia. And the http://sufi.religionsnet.com/ is self-published by Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. his "full tenured" status has no bearing on the fact that the website is self-published. Again, recognizing the appropriateness of various sources and whether or not specific references meet the criteria for reliability comes with experience. While your enthusiasm is commendable, it is simply a bit misguided. Your arguing is essentially landing on deaf ears, because the rationale is not in compliance with policy and guidelines. While assuming good faith about you personally, you may wish to review |this link regarding invitations extended to others, requesting them to participate in this discussion. Best regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:SELFPUB||WP:GNG||WP:MEAT)