Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Iranian throne

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 delete. Tone 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Iranian throne[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This throne has been defunct since 1979. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 25 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25). TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alternative history or WP:CRYSTAL, as there is no existing throne to be in line to succeed to, and no legally-operative rules by which such a line can be determined. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Pahlavi claim seem well sourced, whereas the Qajar claim is in need of citation. Under 'normal' circumstances I would say, that the older dynasty (Qajar) didn't belong in the article, but since not descending from the Qajars is a requirement for being in the line of succession under the Pahlavi claim the comparison is interesting, though I would say, that the numbers listed by the 'Qajar claim' are inappropriate. The idea stated in the nomination that there can't be a line of succession, when there isn't an existing monarchy is more or less bogus. It's a private and so far unsourced opinion.

There will in by far the most cases always be a line of succession to a monarchial institution, if that institution was based on the principle of inheriting the tile, unless the family in question has run out of heirs. The assumption that the line of succession to a former throne dosen't exist any more is pretty much an (unsourced) opinion, a private opinion not based in any international rules or resolutions. I can't think of a UN-resolution that mentions anyting about that the line of succession to defunct thrones dosen't exist any more?

We do actually have a number of cases, where referendums have been held about the question whether an abolished monarchy should be restored. If we put the 1947 Spanish referendum aside, because it didn't involve reinstating an actual monarch in the job, then there are at least four known examples of such referendums: 1935 Greek monarchy referendum, 1953 Maldivian constitutional referendum, 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum & 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum. These referendums would have been meaningless, if the nations where they took place didn't think a) there is actually a former royal family, we can put back on the throne and b) there is a line of succession in that family that determins, who will become monarch and who will become first, second, third and so forth in the line of succession if we the people/nation decides to bring back the monarchy to our country.

I didn't get around having classes in law at university, but I'm pretty confident, that most lawyers would say, that it is/was the latest law of succession from before the monarchy was abolished, that defines the line of succession in that particular royal/princely family. Isn't that just a statement on my behalf? Perhaps, but if we take a look at the historical examples it is evident, that when a republic is abolished and a former monarchy comes into existence once more, then the restored monarchies have had no need for defining who would be the monarch and who would be the heirs in the line of succession once more, they simply followed the laws or rules from the last time, the monarchy had been in function. The examples of this, that I can think of is:

Britain (England and Scotland) 1660

Kingdom of France 1814

French Empire 1852 (though Napoleon III changed the law of succession immediately after he had acceded the throne)

Spain 1874

Greece 1935

Maldives 1953

Of course a restored monarchy can make the choise, that they will follow a new set of rules conserning succession to the throne, but in these cases it's a deliberate choise in the situation. The examples could be Hungary (1920), Spain (1947/1975) and Cambodia (1993).

So the historical evidence strongly points to the conclussion, that lines of successions is maintained within a royal/princely family, even if the family no longer functions as reigning family within an existing independent monarchy.

Of course there will be cases, where a line of succession can't be established - Hungary would make such an example, since the latest Hungarian monarchy (1920-1946) didn't recognice anyone as eligible for being the monarch of the country, and therefore the country didn't have and didn't recognice (while still a monarchy) a particular line of succession. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rules that governed succession to existing monarchies have changed (in some monarchies repeatedly), and there is no reason were Iran to reestablish a monarchy they would be bound by rules from before the Revolution (and seriously, does anyone really think this is going to happen?). Yes, there could hypothetically be a referendum that installed the person legitimists consider to be the heir to the former monarchy as king, but there could just as well be referenda that choose someone other than that legitimate heir. When Spain restored a monarchy in 1975, the person chosen was not the person next in line based on the prior rules of succession. Keeping this page under the supposition that the a country hypothetically restoring a monarchy at some point in the future is in any way bound by the rules that no longer exist is simply groundless and subjective. Agricolae (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That there is no line of succession when there is no monarchy isn't an opinion, it's what there being no monarchy means. This is easily demonstrated by asking a simple question: Who succeeded Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran when he died in 1980? That's right, nobody did. That's all there is to it. And you also have the WP:BURDEN of proof backwards: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the one arguing for the inclusion of material, so you're the one who needs to demonstrate that the line of succession to the defunct throne still exists. Which you can't, because it doesn't.

Your own line of reasoning here acknowledges that this is all hypothetical. In other words, it's speculative, alternative history – real-life fan fiction, if you will. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTSPECULATION. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Comment. There is only one source for this article that does not come from the Reza Pahlavi website, indicating coverage of the succession conflict is limited to PRIMARY sources. If it is not getting attention from independent RS, then it is not notable and should be deleted. However, in the event that such RS are found, I think it would be better to either merge the content into the Pahlavi dynasty page or refactor and move this article such that it reflects the post-monarchy dynastic dispute as a whole rather than focusing on a hypothetical line of succession. Such an article would need to make clear that this is not an extant monarchy, that any outcome of the dispute would have no effect on Iran's governance, and that the people involved do not legally carry recognized hereditary royal titles (i.e. it should not be written from the POV that current Pahlavis or Qajaris are actually "princes of Iran"). JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is perpetuating ideas that have no meaning in the real world. At absolute worst redirect to Pahlevi Dynasty but I do not really see a need for such a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pahlavi dynasty. I do not think there is anything to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Shah of Iran was only disposed in 1979, with the current situation + happenings in that country it’s probable that the Pahlavi dynasty will become very prominent again. Devokewater (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just monarchical wishful thinking. Further, the last Shah himself was placed on the throne by foreign forces, so it is not like his own reign represented a long line of 'normal' succession. WP:CRYSTAL - We can't base our decision on biased guesses about the future. Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is fundamentally unencyclopedic speculation, the line of succession cannot be verified as there are no longer any rules for it. Even if Iran did decide to restore the monarchy there is no guarantee that they would use the same succession rules, indeed this article basically admits that it's likely they would be changed. In any case the article explains that after the current claimant there will be no more claimants under the original succession rules anyway. Hut 8.5 10:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.