Deletion of Sultan Mohammad Najib Ur Rehman

Comment: Being an expert Wikipedian in Islamic issues, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Expert Wikipedians in Islamic issues|verify, I have taken out time for this article and done thorough research so the article may reach a consensus. “Sultan Mohammad Najib ur Rehman” is a writer of Sufism, his books-primarily focused on the teachings of South Asian saints. He is from Pakistan and is commonly known by his title “Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr” such as herehttps://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr&ei=4FM_VryvO4b-swHWs4fQBQ&fg=1#q=khadim+sultan+ul+faqr and ({{Find sources|Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr}}). In 2008, when Pakistan was on the peak of terrorism, he created an organization and named it Tehreek Dawat e Faqrhttp://www.tehreekdawatefaqr.com/eng/contact_us.php in an effort to spread the teachings of Islam. This system and its method of instruction is quite modern and appeals mostly to the youth. According to Wikipedia’s policy, , which states that “Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study” the subject of the article does meet notability criteria cited in . What initially looked like any other sect of Islam, turned out to be a systematic organization focused on modern-day Sufism.http://www.tehreekdawatefaqr.com/eng/oath-allegiance-bayat-teachings-sultan-bahoo.php. He an Urdu writer but some of his books have already been translated into English such as thishttps://books.google.com/books?id=hlyMAwAAQBAJ&dq=sultan+bahoo+life+and+teachings&source=gbs_navlinks_s&redir_esc=y and thishttps://books.google.com/books?id=7bSzCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=kashf+ul+asrar&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kashf%20ul%20asrar&f=false. Per , which states  “should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.”  In modern Islamic Sufism writings, this person is significant enough to have an article at Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SCHOLAR||WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: Being uncivil to make your point does not work at Wikipedia'''. You may as well read that yourself. In this era, the higher the number of views of a particular website or page, the higher is its ranking it terms of its popularity. This is the criteria for notability which explains why "'''google search'''" is listed amongst find sources ({{Find sources}}) in every Wikipedia deletion discussion to check whether the article meets . Most Wikipedia editors heavily rely upon using "google search" to reference articles. So first clarify yourself as to the criteria of judging the international popularity and notability standards. Hence, undoubtedly the article stands . Note that your foul language violates  and PA. You must "avoid profane and offensive language" and “participate in a respectful way” in discussions especially those related to religion. You are strongly recommended to "strike out your uncivil comment, or re-word it neutrally
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:CIVILITY||WP:NPA)

Comment: Per , which states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", this article is perfectly acceptable and meets the criteria for neutral point of view. I see no sign of promotion especially because it uses Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone|impartial tone and |cites sources apart from primary which are verifiable under  such as thishttp://saintsofislam.com/tazkira-e-auliya-biographies/hazrat-sakhi-sultan-mohammad-najib-ur-rehman/, thishttps://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Ux_TbwAACAAJ&sa=X&ei=cBaoVJHuNofSgwTn6oH4CA&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA, thishttp://www.hamariweb.com/articles/article.aspx?id=57629,  etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:citing sources)

Comment: HyperGaruda's analysis of the sources is correct, and I cannot find any reliable sources to replace them with a GBooks or DDG search. Fails  as well as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Not seeing any coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the three linked by Remi, second is a "book" taken from Wikipedia, 1 and 3 are variations of the same fawning adoration posted on multiple non |reliable sources with no sign of Abdur Rehman, Lahore being an independent expert. Stats are interesting but not a sign of |notability. Not all sects are worthy of the same coverage Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarwari Qadiri
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: even https://www.google.nl/search?q=%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86+%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF+%D9%86%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%A8+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%B0%D9%86&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ETM9Vr69O8L8O7feiaAE#q=%22%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86+%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF+%D9%86%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%A8+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%86%22&start=20 searching for the Arabic-script name results in a meager 24 hits, after Google had "omitted some entries very similar to the 24 already displayed." None of them would qualify as  by the way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)