Deletion of Sovereign order of the knights of orient

Comment: the book cited, published in 1921, can only be a source for the first part of the article, which is a ramble through all sorts of mediaeval orders - following up the names leads to the Freemasonry|Freemasons, the Rosicrucianism|Rosicrucians, the Teutonic knights|Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar... The point of the article is the claim that the order has been reconstituted; the only source given is the web-site of  the "Sovereign Hindu-Vaishnava Mandir" set up by HSH Prince Leonardo Salomone (presumably {{user1|Leonardo108}}, author of this article); as well as this Order it includes a "Royal Vedic University." Searches for these find only that website, plus references spammed into Wikipedia by an IP on 1 April, and one in Italian WP. No |reliable sources, possible hoax/scam, certainly not |notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: due to lack of |reliable sources.  I ran a Google search when the article was re-created before I posted the second PROD, and also found zero hits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: No |notability apparent, and I'm seeing no |reliable sources.  Only link is a web page apparently about the order.  Note, we are |not a democracy here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:DEMOCRACY)

Comment: I'd like to point out that thus far we have come up with a reason that trumps your statement that they are a verifiable non profit organization - they are not notable.  I bring this up because you ''repeatedly'' tell us that this org effectively exists, but we repeatedly tell you that this org is not |notable. Being a non profit org does not make one notable, it makes one a non profit org.  The repetition does not help. Just saying
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Does not even come close to meeting the requirements at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Actually, this is a democratic process. People are discussing the merits of the article, and how easily verified it is. In this case, the article so far has not been verified as legitimate or notable in any way. As an encyclopedia, information presented must have independant research in order to back its claims. Wikipedia is not the place for |original research. No one here is saying that people can't believe what they want. Obviously that is everyone's entitelment. However, that has no bearing on the facts we are presented, which is why this article is being discussed for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)