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 Egyptian 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 1953. 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, including one minor.

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) 12:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom and the arguments in all the previous deletions. Without an existing crown with existing rules of succession, there is no actual reliable basis for compiling such a list without arbitrarily making decisions over what the non-existent rules would be had they still existed. Agricolae (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - poorly sourced, but still an interesting article, I think, from an encyclopedic point of view. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above comment. Balle010 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the usual reasons, and this article is mostly unsourced. PatGallacher (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be sufficient independent coverage of royal pretensions, and especially of the specific succession line claimed here (the sole ref for #2 in the line is a facebook picture announcing the birth of Mohamed Ali's twins). The info on pre-1953 succession rules is rightfully covered by History_of_Egypt_under_the_Muhammad_Ali_dynasty, so zero verifiable information would be lost by deleting this page. JoelleJay (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not 1905, and mankind does not in the main anymore see a need for monarchs. Basically for the last 112 years every new state created has been created without a monarchy. You might be able to quip with me about Iraq, but almost all post WWI states were created that way, and so have all post-WWII states, and so monarchies are almost extinct and there is no reason to pretend there is meaning to all these displaced monarchies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - simply because something is historical, isn't a reason to delete information from wikipedia, but this information could be merged with the main article Muhammad_Ali_dynasty Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not being proposed because the information is historical, it is being proposed because the rules used to determine the line of succession are historical rules inoperative in the world at present. The actual current rule of succession in Egypt is that whomever the military supports will be awarded the victory in the periodic manipulated elections, but that is not a formula one can use to predict any line of succession. Agricolae (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- The article contains some information on the relationship within the family that is not in Muhammad Ali dynasty, which only has a list of other members of the family. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, defunt Royal Family --Devokewater (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Muhammad Ali dynasty. While the current line of succession is unencyclopedic speculation, there is some sourced content about succession while the dynasty was in power which would make a suitable addition there. Hut 8.5 10:43, 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.