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 Keep. After an impressively lengthy discussion given the relatively few participants in this afd, I am closing this discussion as a clear keep consensus and without any dissenting opinion except for the nominator. I am NOT an admin, but my closing action is permitted by this policy section. If you think I have made any missteps please let me know. Bwithh 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Pahlavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

She is not notable enough to warrant her own article, considering the current Farahnaz Pahlavi article. True, she is the eldest daughter of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, but this is already present in his article, see Mohammad Reza Pahlavi#Wives_and_children. The rest of her article lacks references and does not describe anything notable about her, just that she has attended college and has a job. Since there is nothing special about her listed, having a separate article for her is unnecessary. The Behnam 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no problem with this article remaining on the site. Farahnaz Pahlavi was a member of a royal family recently deposed in the span of history, I vote that it should stay. She may be an incredibly minor personage but she was part of a tumultuous moment in history, thanks to her parents.Mowens35 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a source for some of the items about her, but the fact that they are from her own homepage doesn't help. Non-notable people can have homepages; I believe the non-notability still applies. She is important only in that she is the eldest daughter of the Shah, but this already covered in the Shah's article. She hasn't had much involvement in major events. Many people were somehow involved in the Iranian revolution(I assume that is the "tumultuous moment"), but they do not all have pages. If she had some significant role in the actual events of the revolution, mention and source this into her article. The Behnam 17:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the proposed guidline WP:ROYAL:

Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.... This includes former monarchies

Iran has a larger population than the UK, so their equivalent of Princess Anne is entitled to the same judgement of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a proposed guideline. Why should it be accepted here? Let us go by official notability policy regarding people. I will soon elaborate, point by point, why she does not fit the criteria adequately(too tired now). I am not familiar with Princess Anne, but if she has a similar situation to Farahnaz, perhaps her article should also be considered for deletion. The Behnam 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wiki's proposed guidelines seem to be the norm, ie following them (see most, if not all monarchs and former monarchs, and you will see that their children, however minor their lives, are given their own pages, per Wiki's proposed guidelines, which would seem to establish a certain precedent in these matters). Any deviations from the proposed guidelines seem to be decided by consensus. Curiously, your focus is solely on deleting Farahnaz rather than proposing to delete articles about all of the Shah's children and those of other royals; is there a reason for that particular focus on that particular individual? At the moment the score seems to be 1 for deletion, 2 for inclusion.Mowens35 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Farahnaz Pahlavi and Ali Reza Pahlavi II articles should be deleted simply because those two haven't done anything notable. Their two siblings ought to have articles because they have gained significant media coverage. Their position in the royal family is already noted in the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article, and the rest of the information regards unimportant personal facts. In the case of Farahnaz, the article is acting as an extension of her homepage. I find her to be trivial based upon WP:BIO. Consider the central criteria from the WP:BIO page...

• The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.

   * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 except for the following:
         o Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.3
         o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.

Consider Farahnaz's article. The source for the information is not even a media reprint; it is her own homepage. She is not the primary subject of multiple non-trivial works simply because she hasn't done very much to gain real media attention.

Now, note the other criteria:

• The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.

Farahnaz does not appear to have made an enduring to her field, which is social work and child psychology.

• Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.6 (For candidates for office, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)

She approaches qualification for this one, due to the political aspect, but it specifically refers to actual offices, not simply titles. She also is not a former legislator.

• Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.5 Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

She has not received significant press coverage, as mentioned earlier, though the "local official" qualification does not fit her anyway.

• Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame).

Not a widely recognized entertainment personality or opinion maker. Unlike her older brother, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, she hasn't been a significant voice regarding Iranian affairs.

• Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.

Obviously, she has no sports recognition.

• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. ...

She is clearly not an actress or television personality.

• Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

While some of her relatives have made significant works, bringing them to notability, Farahnaz hasn't done the same.

• Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.

Again, not a major player in her field. Not to say that she doesn't have any accomplishments in child psychology, but she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly enduring.

• Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.

Again, no newsworthy event involvement.

Considering the her complete non-notability under the general, well-accepted notability guidelines, I hardly see why a proposed subcategory for Royalty should take precedence over the accepted guideline. Thanks for any response you have to offer. The Behnam 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's not her own homepage; it's her mother's (please note the primary web address: farahpahlavi.org, with the sub page being about her daughter, ie it's her mother's official website). In any case, per Wiki precedent, children of rulers can be given their own pages. Are you also lobbying for all children of all royals, especially those who have done "nothing" in your estimation, to have their articles deleted? If so, that is something to be taken up on a wider level in Wiki. In any case, the tally thus far for Farahnaz is three votes for KEEP and one vote (yours) for DELETE.Mowens35 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was wrong about it being her own homepage, though I do not see what difference that makes to her notability. A mother writing about her daughter on her homepage doesn't make the daughter any more significant. You correcting me is nice, but has no real bearing on my argument that Farahnaz is not significant enough for a Wikipedia article. Was that all you could think of in response to my post? Right now, I am only addressing the Farahnaz Pahlavi article, based upon the application of the criteria above. How about you respond to the points I made with the above criteria instead of presenting pointless questions about my "wider" aims? Please, look at my post regarding every part of the notability criteria, and try to refute my points there, if you can. The Behnam 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the discussion is up to the voting, yes? You placed the article into contention for deletion, which requires voting on. At the moment, it's still 3-1. The polls remain open.Mowens35 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask the question, there is voting involved, though I do not know what you mean by "At this point". A vote has always been active on this page; I have simply continued to give numerous reasons why I think it should be deleted, based upon official Wikipedia policy. I thought it would be nice if you were able to provide extensive reasoning behind your position, but judging based upon your responses, you are not able to. This is unfortunate, because I would really like to know how exactly you have judged her by the criteria of the official Wikipedia policy and still deemed her notable. It seems you have used a proposed guideline, but I then wonder how you can place the proposed guideline above official Wikipedia policy in your reasoning. If your responses were more persuasive and less evasive, I might even vote against myself. The Behnam 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behnam, the proposed guideline comes from Wiki and is extensively used as the basis for the Farahnaz's article inclusion, as well as other royal family members of various royal families. It is, therefore, precedent, what the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the US has called stare decisis, ie "the doctrine of precedent". If you wish to try to upend this precedent, please feel free to entice supporters, et cetera, and let's see where this goes. Wiki is a community and therefore many precedents/guidelines/rules were developed through consensus and clear voting. At the present time, the votes are 3-1 against your desire to delete. That's called the democracy, I think, and if you continue to be outnumbered, you will have to claim defeat and shake hands and move on to other, more important matters. I've already placed my vote, and my reasons for doing so are precedent per Wiki's own stated guidelines. I do not believe that I need any stronger reason than that and therefore, with all due respect, rest my case.Mowens35 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that is a proposed guideline and specifically not meant to be treated as official policy, because it is not entirely agreed upon by "consensus and clear voting" is why I do not think you should use it as a precedent here, when there is the more general and actually official policy regarding notability. I have raised objections based upon this actual official policy, rather than a mere proposal. Of course, you can respond to what I have stated if you like, but you seem committed to giving up on arguing your case. If you ever feel like presenting more of a case, I welcome you to do so. But please, don't treat the WP:ROYAL as official policy, because it is not. The Behnam 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that I was wrong in agreeing that this is just a vote. Please see WP:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette, the first bullet point. This point is, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." So Mowens35, I think it is best that you continue to make your case, as this is debate is to be sustained by arguments, so you should respond to new arguments I present. Glad to help out. The Behnam 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the use of the word "vote" was incorrect; however, we discussing whether to keep or delete an entry, so the word works, at least loosely. My vote is already for KEEP (Mowens35 here, having difficulty signing in). I have already discussed, thoroughly, why I feel the article should remain, as per Wiki proposals for members of royal houses. I went back to WP: Royal to see what the proposed guidelines state, per previous discussions, and discovered this passage, which is that on which I base my KEEP response: "This includes former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis. Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria)." I am adhering to this proposed guideline, which has been developed through previous discussions of other other editors, and feel that I cannot emphasis my reasons for keeping Farahnaz, et al, any more clearly. It is now time for others to weigh in. It is pointless for me to continually respond to Behnam, when my answer(s) remain the same: my KEEP opinion is based on Wiki precedence, as per the quoted passage.67.142.130.20 14:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you still fail understand the distinction between a proposed guideline and official policy or even an official guideline. An official policy is an accepted set of rules for editing Wikipedia. An official guideline is like official policy except that situational exceptions should be considered in application of the dictates of the guideline. A proposed guideline is a guideline that some have simply proposed; it has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community as an official guideline, and should not be treated as an official guideline.

Considering this, it remains baffling how you can throw about WP:BIO, which is official policy, and place a proposed guideline above it. This is not in adherence to Wikipedia policy. There is no "precedence" policy here, that allows people to ignore official policy. A proposed guideline is not official policy. Please, explain yourself. The Behnam 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled at Behnam's misinterpretation of WP:BIO. It states in the second paragraph, "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." It says it is not Wikipedia policy. Interestingly enough, Behnam states that WP:BIO "is official policy". Unless Behnam feels he can speak for the entire Wikipedian community, WP:BIO should not be referred as official policy. I would also like to submit to Behnam's consideration the fourth paragraph of WP:BIO, it states "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." I appreciate Behnams bullet point explanation as to how Farahnaz Pahlavi does to meet the list in central criterion for inclusion in WP:BIO, but he must know that in WP:BIO it states a person does not have to meet any of those categories to be included in Wikipedia. I certainly agree with Behnam that this page is for debate and is not a page for just votes. Thus, I will use my energies in convincing Behnam as to why this article should be included. Agha Nader 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

Good catch! You are right about my misinterpretation, regarding it being policy. However, the distinction between "guideline" and "proposed guideline" still stands, and people have judged the Farahnaz article based upon the a proposed guideline instead of the more accepted guideline WP:BIO. The fact that she did not fall into the categories is why she was not automatically deleted. Hence, this discussion. I am wondering whether or not you want to convince me that she meets the criteria on WP:BIO, or you plan to convince me through some alternative argument. In any case, I look forward to your response, and again commend your good catch of my error. Thanks! The Behnam 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your speedy comment. I appreciate your devotion to improving Wikipedia. Furthermore, by insisting upon deleting this article you have motivated others to improve it. This is a very commendable act. I hope you too will try on improving this article. I must say most of your argument for deleting this article is based on WP:BIO. Although, you have made a new point in your last comment about using WP:BIO above a proposed guideline. I am afraid this is irrelevant to my last comment since I did not cite WP:ROYAL. Since the notion of notability is not definite (WP:BIO stated "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)"), alternative test can be used to explain a certain person's notability. WP:BIO has a section called "Alternative tests" and in this section it explains the Speed Engine Test, "Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google ([1]), Alexa ([2]), Yahoo! ([3]) or other well-known Internet search engine?". Although this test may seem trivial, it is part of a Wikipedia guideline. I ask you to run this test and see for yourself that in fact there are "a large number" of hits on search engines. I received 1,400 hits on Google for the query "Farahnaz Pahlavi". To end your wondering " I am wondering whether or not you want to convince me that she meets the criteria on WP:BIO, or you plan to convince me through some alternative argument.", I used the alternative test called "Search Engine Test" on WP:BIO. This is another testament, which uses a guideline and not a proposed guideline, to Farahnaz Pahlavi's notability. Agha Nader 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader[reply]

The search test is considered a proposal on the WP:BIO page, not an actual criterion of the guideline. See the first sentence at WP:BIO#Alternative_tests. You are mistaken in considering the search test as not a proposal, as you did in concluding your last comment.

Anyway, I have searched Google for "Farahnaz Pahlavi" earlier, not as a simple hit test but in a quest to find significant sources for her article. Many of the results were from Wikipedia mirrors, or simple reproductions of her basic biography from her mom's homepage (royalty databases). Last night I selected a few that had more unique mention of her, but she wasn't the primary subject. I cannot find online, independent media stories about Farahnaz Pahlavi. Some references have been added to her article, which is good, though I fear she is not the primary subject of all references, or that the other references may be trivial, but I plan to go through them upon gaining access to print materials. The main problem, therefore, is that she isn't receiving significant media coverage, at least not on the internet.

Since by citing the search test, a proposal, instead of addressing my points made using the criteria of the accepted guideline WP:BIO, I fear that same problem exists as does for WP:ROYAL versus WP:BIO. How can a proposal be held over the accepted guideline? I really think the best approach, for you, would be to try showing her significance according to the criteria of WP:BIO, since it is accepted guideline. I do not know those arguing to KEEP the article have not tried to show her notability by going through the criteria of WP:BIO as I did to explain why she is not notable. I think that to do so would lead to a much more constructive discussion. Thanks Agha Nader, for carrying on with the case, rather than giving it up like Mowens35 did, as I think we both understand that discussion is important on this matter. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am again grateful for your speedy comment. You are truly an exemplary Wikipedian; you do not seem to have any motives rather than improving Wikipedia. You state, "Thanks Agha Nader, for carrying on with the case, rather than giving it up like Mowens35 did, as I think we both understand that discussion is important on this matter". I am grateful for your accolade. I wonder if your accolade is addressed to me or Mowens35. I consider it addressed to me since you posted your comment as a reply to mine. I cannot and will not speak for Mowens35, since I do not know him or his motives. But, Mowens35 seems to have only improved Farahnaz Pahlavi's article. I must disagree with you when you say he has given up. Although he has not replied to your arguments for a while, he has added more information to the article. These added informations have references also. Mowens35 also stated, "I've already placed my vote, and my reasons for doing so are precedent per Wiki's own stated guidelines. I do not believe that I need any stronger reason than that and therefore, with all due respect, rest my case." As you can see, he has provided a reason as too why he is no longer replying to your comments: he has already stated his reason for why the article should remain. You argue that many of the returns for the proposed Alternative Search Test from WP:BIO should be disregarded, "Many of the results were from Wikipedia mirrors, or simple reproductions of her basic biography from her mom's homepage (royalty databases)." Although the website of the last Queen of Iran my seem bias to you, it is a verifiable source. There is no provision against sources that are published by a family member. As you already know, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." WP:V#SELF. Except this is not a self-published source (Farahnaz Pahlavi did not publish it, Farah Pahlavi did). They are not the same person. Furthermore, Farah Pahlavi is a third-party. i.e. she is not Farahnaz Pahlavi. Please refer to the guideline on notability, it states "What constitutes a 'published work' is deliberately broad" WP:BIO. You may believe Farah Pahlavi's website is not a published source, but you cannot prove this. If you can prove that this source should not count, please provide an argument. As it follows, you say many of the returns are mirrors of her site. There will always be mirrors in a search, so this is not exclusive to Farahnaz's Pahlavi. And thus you should not disregard the Search Test. You still seem to misinterpret WP:BIO. It is only a guideline: it is not official policy. You ask, "How can a proposal be held over the accepted guideline?". There is a crucial flaw in this question: WP:BIO is not accepted by all. It even states in WP:BIO, almost as a disclaimer, "However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." So you can see WP:BIO is just the opinion of many Wikipedian, but not all. It does not even state that it is the opinion of most Wikipedian's. This is the case for the Alternative Search Test. It is the opinion of many Wikipedian's that it should be used as an alternative test. It is not the opinion of all Wikipedians, and it may not be the opinion of most. I do not think we can weigh the importance of WP:BIO or the Alternative Search Test. We must look at each article on a case by case basis. I believe the Alternative Search Test is a testament to Farahnaz Pahlavi's notability. There is another point to be made. Ask yourself, will there be students who wish to do research on the Pahlavi Dynasty? Will they want to know about Farahnaz Pahlavi? Will they want to know about the fate of the Pahlavis? This article is very helpful to such students. And it can be more helpful if we improve it. Agha Nader 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader.[reply]

Thanks for the praise. I also appreciate your speedy response. I will now try to go through everything you brought up:

• The response was to you, and the accolade was for you, Nader.
• I said Mowens35 gave up on arguing the case, not on the article.
• I objected to his reason for giving up because he treats WP:ROYAL as one of "Wiki's own stated guidelines", which I consider incorrect because it is only a proposed guideline, while his description assigns much more authority to the proposal than is true for Wikipedia. Please read WP:ROYAL, as it provides a sort of 'disclaimer' against treating it as a full guideline.
• I simply noted that numerous results were either Wikipedia mirrors or reproductions of information from a personal webpage. The search test itself seems hit-based.

• I think we both should carefully read WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc..
• The page states that guidelines are "authorized by consensus"".
• The page also states that a proposal are "any suggested guideline, policy or process for which the status of consensus is not yet clear, as long as discussion is ongoing".
• You are wrong in believing that we cannot "weigh the importance" of WP:BIO versus Search Test, as the differences page shows that guidelines are more valuable than proposals in assessing qualification, as WP:BIO is a guideline while Search Test is a proposed method.
• Also, read the page about the Search Test, and you will see that it is hardly a well-defined qualification. It admits that the test is very open to interpretation. So, you think that he results are notable, but I do not think so. Is your opinion better than mine?

• I have already noted that it is Farah's site, not Farahnaz's.
• Even putting aside the bias possibility you brought up, it still fails WP:V and WP:RS, since it is a personal website.
• Quote, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book.". This is from the WP:RS guideline.
• But it is good that you have brought up bias; does Farah Pahlavi's official website have a bias under WP:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias? If I had to suggest one, I would suggest a possible political bias. After reading the site a bit, I would describe it as a promotion of the former Empress of Iran, and perhaps as promotion of monarchy in that country. Do you think there is a bias? I wonder, since you brought it up.

• Aside from whether or not the homepage is even a good source, the issue of notability remains, and considering the page about the differences between proposals, guidelines, etc., WP:BIO should not be ignored.
• With this in mind, I ask that you please assess Farahnaz Pahlavi based upon the criteria of the WP:BIO guideline.

• As far as students go, I do think some will be interested in the Pahlavi dynasty. I don't know about these particular students' institutions, but I know that my university, Wikipedia shouldn't be referenced in research about a topic not related to Wikipedia.
• I definitely support improvement, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, any more than it should be an extension of Farah Pahlavi's homepage.
• If I decide that there is good reason for Farahnaz to be considered notable, I definitely will drop my case here. The additional references seem to mostly mention her in passing, but that can be discussed on the article's talk page.

I hope I managed to address everything you brought forward. This discussion will close soon anyway, but please, keep up the good work, and I look forward to your response. The Behnam 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your neat bullet point argument. I have considered replying to you in the bullet format, but I believe in the convention and style of English in the essay format. Unfortunately, you did not respond to all of my arguments. Will a bullet point format help you respond to all of my arguments? Do you use a bullet point format because I don't respond to all of your arguments? I certainly hope not. Let me first begin by addressing the points you make. Thank you for the link WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc.. It was very informative. Although I believe this case is unique in that there is a certain disclaimer at the beginning of WP:BIO. This disclaimer, as I have been known to call it, is "However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." It is clear, from this quote of WP:BIO, that, in fact, there is not a consensus on the guideline on notability. I hope you take special note in this argument. You say, "You are wrong in believing that we cannot 'weigh the importance' of WP:BIO versus Search Test, as the differences page shows that guidelines are more valuable than proposals in assessing qualification". In this comment you say that WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc., when you say "the differences page", shows that guidelines are more important than proposals. I found nothing on WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. to indicate this. Furthermore I do not believe WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. states "that guidelines are more important than proposals in assessing qualification". Please give me the quote from WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. that states this. As of now I consider it your opinion, and nothing more, that WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. "shows that guidelines are more valuable than proposals in assessing qualification". In regards to the Alternative Search Test you say "that it is hardly a well-defined qualification. It admits that the test is very open to interpretation. So, you think that he results are notable, but I do not think so. Is your opinion better than mine?" I must remind you that the Alternative Search Test tests notability and not qualifications. Let me just say, that even though one of your opinions may be more informed opinions, with regards to Wikipedia, neither of your opinions count. And thus, neither are better. You say that the Alternative Search Test "admits that the test is very open to interpretation". I did not find anything on WP:BIO that says the Alternative Search Test in open to interpretation. If you have a quote from WP:BIO that admits the Alternative Search Test "admits that the test is very open to interpretation" then please provide it in your next comment. I have tested people who have articles about them on Wikipedia, and whose notability is not in question, and many had equal to or less than the amount of results as the query "Farahnaz Pahlavi". Fortunately, there is no room for opinion when it comes to arithmetic. With regards to Farah Pahlavi's website as a source you state it "still fails WP:V and WP:RS, since it is a personal website." If you think a "personal website" is a website about a person, you are wrong. But, in the context of WP:V and WP:RS, a personal website is a website published by the person the Wikipedia article is about. Consider the title of the section from which it stats personal websites are not allowed: "Self-published sources (online and paper)". The reason I brought up the point of bias is that you regarded Farah Pahlavi's website with doubt previously. Also, suggest a political bias for the source of Farah Pahlavi's website, "I would suggest a possible political bias." Why would there be political bias? Farahnaz Pahlavi is not in politics. Neither is her mother. Take this note into consideration, who knows Farahnaz Pahlavi better than her mother? You make a very interesting point with regards to Wikipedia's acceptance in academia. You say the university you attend does not accept Wikipedia as reference, this is ashame. I hope that our efforts as Wikipedians can improve the acceptance of Wikipedia. Furthermore Wikipedia can be helpful to a student who attends your university and is studying the Pahlavi Dynasty. i.e. the student can use references used in the Farahnaz Pahlavi article to find out more about her from sources that are accepted by your university. Also, a students studying of the Pahlavi Dyanasty is not exclusive to university students who wish to use Wikipedia for school work, or even university students in general. You are a very reseanable person, and because of this we can agree on many things. An example of this is when you state, "I definitely support improvement, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, any more than it should be an extension of Farah Pahlavi's homepage." I agree with you on this, and I hope we can agree on the fate of the article on Farahnaz Pahlavi. Agha Nader 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader[reply]

Thanks again for the response. I have no problem with you using either essay format or bullet format, though I suggest you utilize paragraphs, as paragraphs are commonly used in essays to improve organization and clarity. I am willing to address you regardless of which you use. I will now address your response:

• I do not know why you say that I did not address all of your points, as you do not say which points I actually did not address.
• I understand that you did respond to my points by further elaborating your position, but you do not specify which points I failed to address. I think we both did a good job addressing each other's points.
• If there is something that I have missed, please bring it up and I will try to address it.

• I assert that WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. values guidelines above proposals because it states that guidelines are "authorized by consensus", whereas the status of consensus for a proposal is "not yet clear". I suppose that if you do not consider consensus important for policies, guidelines, etc., then we do not have common ground here, but I thought it reasonable to assume you valued consensus.
• Considering WP:CON, my judgment's reliance upon contrasting the level of consensus of a guideline versus a proposal is not out of line, as Wikipedia also seems to value consensus.

• I understand that there is a 'disclaimer', as you are known to call it, on the WP:BIO page.
• However, the 'disclaimer' you quote simply states that "not all" Wikipedians agree to the guideline. This does not mean it lacks consensus.
• According to the differences page WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc., a guideline has been "authorized by consensus". As WP:BIO is indeed a guideline, it apparently met this consensus, and is so authorized. It cannot be a guideline otherwise.

• You say that you "did not find anything on WP:BIO that says the Alternative Search Test in open to interpretation".
• I recommend you try reading actual page for the Search Test, namely WP:SET.
• Read it carefully, and note WP:SET#Validity_of_the_Google_test, which opens, "Given that the results of a Google test are interpreted subjectively, its implementation is not always consistent."
• As it is given that the results are "interpreted subjectively", I am correct in saying that the Search Test is open to interpretation.

• You then said, "Let me just say, that even though one of your opinions may be more informed opinions, with regards to Wikipedia, neither of your opinions count. And thus, neither are better."
• I apologize, but I do not understand your statement. Can you please clarify?

• As far as your notability test of other people, I can only suggest, again, that your read WP:SET, which elaborates on these kind of inconsistencies in the test.
• I quote you, "Fortunately, there is no room for opinion when it comes to arithmetic". I say that while Arithmetic may not have much room for opinion, the value assigned to the hit number of the Google test is subjective, based upon the quote from WP:SET, "Given that the results of a Google test are interpreted subjectively, its implementation is not always consistent."

• I describe Farah Pahlavi's site as a personal website because it is her official website. I quote from the main page, "Welcome to the 2006-07 Official Site of Empress Farah Pahlavi"
• I do not think that a personal website is simply a website about a person. This website is her official site, not just a site about her.
• I suggest you look at WP:RS#Self-published_sources. The opening, "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses".
• Since it is Farah Pahlavi's personal website, but the information under discussion regards Farahnaz Pahlavi, the website is acting as a secondary source. It would be a primary source if we were discussing Farah Pahlavi.
• Under the subsection titled, "Self-published sources as secondary sources", the opening line is, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.".
• Therefore, it is not an accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to use the source.

• I suggested a political bias, since the site seems to focus largely upon women's rights in Iran and the country's condition under the former monarchy; both are subjects related to politics.
• Based upon the opening to her site, she still titles herself "Empress", rather than "former Empress". This smells political, but maybe it's just me.
• Farah may know stuff about her daughter, but I hardly see why her posting information about her daughter on her personal website makes her daughter notable by Wikipedia standards. See WP:BIO.

• I really don't have much more to add to the hypothetical "student" research conversation, but I appreciate your opinions on the topic.
• I am glad you agree that Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

I hope I addressed everything. I would still like you to address the WP:BIO criteria. Thanks again for contributing further good points to the discussion, and I look forward to your response. The Behnam 08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice on using paragraphs in my essay format. I believe I have been using paragraphs in my comments, I distinguish each paragraph from the previous with the return key. I will make them easier to distinguish this time.

I will start off by addressing any ambiguity or statements you believe may foster chaos. I wrote "you did not respond to all of my arguments." The argument you failed to address, in your comment previous to that in which I made that statement, was "It is only a guideline: it is not official policy. You ask, "How can a proposal be held over the accepted guideline?". There is a crucial flaw in this question: WP:BIO is not accepted by all. It even states in WP:BIO, almost as a disclaimer, "However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." So you can see WP:BIO is just the opinion of many Wikipedian, but not all. It does not even state that it is the opinion of most Wikipedian's." You did not address the "disclaimer", as I have been known to call it, in that comment. This is all IRT, if you know what I mean, (Irrelevant). This is because you addressed this argument in your last comment. I only bring this up because you asked me to, "I do not know why you say that I did not address all of your points, as you do not say which points I actually did not address. I understand that you did respond to my points by further elaborating your position, but you do not specify which points I failed to address. I think we both did a good job addressing each other's points. If there is something that I have missed, please bring it up and I will try to address it."

You state, "I suggested a political bias, since the site seems to focus largely upon women's rights in Iran and the country's condition under the former monarchy; both are subjects related to politics." Do you have any evidence that her website has political bias? Or are these suggestions based on "smells": you state, "This smells political, but maybe it's just me." Please provide EVD (evidence)of the political bias of this source.

You asked me to clarify this statement "Let me just say, that even though one of your opinions may be more informed opinions, with regards to Wikipedia, neither of your opinions count. And thus, neither are better." Previously you asked me "Is your opinion better than mine?" And the answer I gave was my opinion (or yours) maybe more informed, but neither of your opinions matter with regards to Wikipedia. What matters is reason and EVD that it IRT.

You state, "I really don't have much more to add to the hypothetical "student" research conversation, but I appreciate your opinions on the topic." I believe this is because we have exhausted this argument and many others. It would be best to move on to different arguments since you have not convinced me and I have not convinced you with the argument presented so far.

So far you haven't provided any argument as to why Farahnaz Pahlavi is not notable, except for the fact that she does not meet the criteria listed it in WP:BIO. All you have done is read too literally into guidelines and proposed guidelines in order to find an excerpt that is beneficial to the deletion of Farahnaz Pahlavi. Since notability is contetious this is not enough, you must look at the big picture. WP:BIO is not an exclusionary list, it is a guideline, to guide people to decide whether someone is notable or not. This does not necessarily mean notablitiy is subjective, rather, it is hard to define. And in some cases is elusive. In fact, the only reason for deleting the article on Farahnaz Pahlavi you present is that she does not fall into the criteria presented in WP:BIO

You have asked me to say which criteria Farahnaz Pahlavi meets in WP:BIO. I will start of with a word of warning, if you wish read too literally into the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, we will not reach an agreement. As you know, Farahnaz Pahlavi was a Princess in Iran. At that time the political system in Iran was a monarchy, so the Shah of Iran, was a politician. This is because politicians are policy makers. This goes for the Queen of Iran. This is evident if you know her previous title, and I believe you do. It was Shahbanu, which means Empress. Surely an Empress is involved in policy making decisions in a monarchy. This can be extended to a princess as well. Thus Farahnaz Pahlavi meets this criteria of WP:BIO, "Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Please provide non-IRT EVD in your next comment. Agha Nader 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

My bulleted replies are grouped in correspondence to the paragraphs of your response:

• Thank you for making your paragraphs clearer.

• Well, I don't think that there has been any real Chaos here, since we have both been fairly straightforward, but the precaution doesn't hurt.
• You rightly call the elaboration irrelevant since you admit that "[I] addressed this argument in [my] last point".

• I suggested, rather than asserted, simply because it was the impression I got from the website, but did not feel it important enough to have a lengthy argument about it.
• While it's possible that I could ground my suggestion with evidence, the possibility of the site being biased isn't highly relevant to my argument for deletion, so unless you feel it does matter, I do not think it useful to discuss at this time.

• Um, still doesn't make sense. Is it possible that you mean "our" instead of "yours"?
• I provide reasoning and evidence based upon guidelines. Considering the relevancy of the WP:BIO guideline to Biographies, and that other guidelines are also applicable, the "IRT" description hardly applies to guideline-based arguments.

• Good. As we agreed, Wikipedia is not a directory.

• You say I failed to provide any arguments, "except for the fact that she does not meet the criteria listed it in WP:BIO". Considering this is a biography, an argument based upon "the fact" that shes doesn't qualify under WP:BIO definitely counts.
• Your attempt to discredit my analysis based upon WP:BIO criteria relies upon the presumptive and disrespectful assumption that I "read too literally" into guidelines and proposals.
• Your following insinuation that I do this "too-literal" reading in order to find an excerpt that is beneficial to the deletion of Farahnaz Pahlavi is a grave and baseless violation of WP:AGF. Apparently, you assume I do this just to delete her article, not because I found her genuinely non-notable.
• I nominated her article for deletion because she is not notable based upon the guideline for biographies, and I presented a thorough criterion-by-criterion argument in support of this.

• Thanks for finally responding to a criterion.
• As Empress, Farah Pahlavi was politically involved. However, Princess is a title, and it does not follow that by virtue of being a princess, Farahnaz was also policy-maker. We need evidence of involvement.
• If you can present evidence that she was an active politician, involved in policy-making, I would find your argument to be stronger. It seems that the closest she had to "involvement", based upon the current article, was wearing a diamond tiara at her father's coronation.

Do not forget my part about "personal websites", which you failed to respond to. Also, try not to post inappropriately to my user talk page again. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A member of a royal family seems very notable to me. Ronbo76 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The WP:ROYAL standard for keeping or deleting articles does not discriminate between Western and non-Western royalty. Farahnaz Pahlavi appears to qualify and her article should remain. Cimm^[talk] 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should definitely remain. Contrary to what Behnam has stated, she has received much media coverage. Even though this media coverage was in Iran, it still qualifies since Wikipedia is not restricted to the West. Iranians abroad and in Iran know and recognize her, and she is famous. Also since she is mentioned on other articles, readers will want to know more about her. Not to mention, she is royalty, and is thus notable. Plus she is in line to the Head of the House of Pahlavi. To purge wikipedia of articles about people who are royalty but haven't done anything note worthy is irrational and unpractical. If Behnam has a problem with this article, maybe he should expand it! Agha Nader 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can expand it, with this supposed "much media coverage" in Iran. I hope that your contributions will meet the reliable source requirements, but we can discuss that once you add these sources and relevant information. The Behnam 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She appears borderline notable by herself, and I agree with the proposed WP:ROYAL standard, whether it's official or not. Georgewilliamherbert 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Before there were official guidelines, there were principles and common sense that guided decisions about what is notable enough for inclusion in a "non-paper" encyclopedia. It isn't the official status, but the rationale that underlies it which lends it ongoing authority. Some of those rationales are undergoing development and articulation at WP:ROYAL, but we need not await that process's completion to act upon sound reasoning. The discussion with The Behnam illustrates the value of completing and promoting WP:ROYAL, because IMHO he's right that the extant guidelines fail to encompass the relevant point, which is that royalty's notability does not derive primarily from what they do, but from what they are, any more than a nation's flag is significant because of what it does or is made of or how unique its design is. It's a symbol, and its importance isn't intrinsic, but a function of the significance attributed to it by others who value some or all of what it stands for. Ditto the notability of royalty. Royalty is a living embodiment of national identity, history and tradition, very much in the same way that a flag or anthem is, except that flags and anthems are plentiful and royalty is extremely rare. Nations do change or discard flags, or change their consensus about what such symbols mean -- as they do about royalty. But that change usually results from extended debate or struggle, and is often re-considered or reversed long afterwards, which is why deposed royalty remains notable (look at how often in the last 100 years Greece established and overthrew its monarchy, and ask yourself why Brazil voted on restoration of the monarchy over 100 years after it had been abolished, and why Uganda, South Africa and other African, Pacific and Asian nations are institutionalizing so-called traditional leadership, which is to say re-constituting local monarchies decades after abolition). Nor is royalty just about the monarch: No nation, whether monarchy or republic, has laws governing marriages of prime ministers, yet nearly every nation that has a monarchy -- constitutional figurehead or absolutism -- has laws governing who its royalty may and may not marry, because royalty -- unlike celebrity -- is about family, i.e. the kinfolk of the monarch. Nor need people approve of, believe in or care about the symbolism of a monarchy for them to find its royalty, well, interesting. You might persuade me that a given royal is not notable by arguing that their dynasty has lost all remnant of public interest (e.g., if the media were to show no more interest in them than in me), but not by arguing that their individual deeds in life lack significance, since that is not relevant to what makes royalty notable in the first place -- whereas public interest is. Finally, given the number of "Keep" votes mounting up on this page, the nominator might want to consider switching to a more relevant line of argument as suggested above -- unless (Wikilawyering) is the real point of this exercise -- even though it seems to me that there is a guideline -- nay, a policy! -- to the effect that Wikipedia is not a soapbox! Lethiere 08:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal views on the importance of royalty, and why you think that WP:ROYAL should be made into an actual guideline. However, as of now, it remains a proposal, and should be treated as such until it is made into a guideline. I suggest you relegate your exhortation seeking guideline status for WP:ROYAL to its discussion page, not here.

The point wasn't my personal views on royalty, but why your arguments aren't proving persuasive here. Since you seemed to sincerely want to understand, I undertook the effort to outline the criteria that I believe are prompting all those KEEP votes. Lethiere 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your views greatly, as they help me understand why you believe all royalty matter. As far as persuasion, I could tell pretty early on it wasn't go my way, as most people treated WP:ROYAL as a guideline, or simply acknowledged its proposal status but still placed it above actual guideline. The criteria you have outlined are more appropriate for the talk page about the WP:ROYAL proposal; if this proposal were made into guideline, I would have no problem with this article; however, until then, I cannot see how proposal can be placed above actual guideline. The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination has nothing to do with WP:Wikilawyering, which I did not even know existed until you posted here. I argue for deletion because I feel that Farahnaz Pahlavi does not meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO. Your insinuation is not appreciated.

People who engage in wikilawyering don't do it because they've read about it and bought into it, but because it's their natural style in discussion. Despite the fact that several editors have commented here that they consider the principles embodied at WP:ROYAL to be appropriate and therefore valid to apply, you continue to insist that until it becomes a formal guideline, it is irrelevant to this discussion and should be irrelevant to people's votes. As you can see, however, that isn't working for you. The Wikilawyering article describes the phenomenon as, "Breaking the spirit of a policy or guideline through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express...Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsensical way to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution." That clause is why I cited it in this discussion. A fundamental criterion for articles in WP is notability. Extant guidelines help us determine if that is present in specific cases, but don't exhaust what people consider "notable". Focusing on getting people to "stick to the rules" as you interpret them (despite the fact that "the rules" themselves say they are neither exhaustive nor binding), while ignoring what people tell you is the substantive basis of their decision in a specific case, is considered wikilawyering. Lethiere 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification about your use of Wikilawyering against me. While I now understand where you are coming from, as my argumentation here is rather rule-based, I don't think that my approach is a "too-literal interpretation", or that it breaks the spirit of a guideline. My case is rooted in guideline; yours is rooted in proposal. There is nothing wikilawyering about drawing a distinction between the two; in fact, there is a section devoted entirely to their differences. See WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc.. The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving thoughtful consideration to my argument that focusing upon whether this article complies with WP:BIO fails to address the underlying criteria your interlocutors consider relevant and decisive, and is therefore unlikely to achieve the deletion of this article that you seek. I am now convinced that you fully understand and prefer that outcome to the prospect of building consensus in support of your proposal to delete, if that would require you to address concerns you consider improperly raised. While I disagree with your interpretation, it strikes me as a coherent and well-articulated one. I have enjoyed exchanging points of view with you, have learned, and look forward to future opportunities to work together to improve WP. Lethiere 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. Nothing about my support for deletion is a form of advertising, propoganda, advocacy, or self-promotion, and I find your insinuation offensive. Again, I argue for deletion because she does not meet the notability criteria of theWP:BIO guideline. The Behnam 08:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are advocating that people base their decision exclusively on the guideline you prefer to apply, despite evidence that people, having heard your arguments, continue to base their decision on other factors they deem relevant. I thought perhaps those "other factors" hadn't been articulated clearly and fully enough for you to "hear" them, since you keep soapboxing the same point -- "Prove to me that this princess is notable according to WP:BIO" -- so I tried to fill that gap. Sorry if that doesn't help. And I truly apologize if you feel offended, since I respect your sincerity and meant to help you see why your arguments might not be proving successful -- but impatience did creep into my response, and I beg your pardon for that. Lethiere 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue has been that using WP:ROYAL as a "stated guideline" is not appropriate, since it is a proposal, which is not supposed to be treated as an accepted guideline, a.k.a. it is not authorized by consensus. Not only is this justified by the categorization of proposal relative to guidelines and policies; a quick look at the WP:ROYAL talk page confirms the uncertain status of consensus that keeps it as a proposal(though it appears you are already familiar with the talk page). I have, since the beginning, relied upon the guideline WP:BIO because it is designed to be a guideline regarding biographical articles, such as the Farahnaz Pahlavi article. I don't consider arguing based upon accepted guidelines as soap-box advocacy, and I do not intend that WP:BIO be exclusively applied. If you have an argument for Keep that is based on actual guidelines, not proposals, I am very open to consideration, but proposals lack authorization by consensus. The soapbox accusation hardly seems acceptable. By the way, your big speech above about why royalty matters seems to be more "soapboxing" than anything I've done, since you do not argue by policy but instead by your personal values regarding royalty. I don't have anything against you having those views, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a soap box. The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO is not the only WP guideline which might apply. As BIO notes, other criteria may apply. One of the ways that new guidelines become approved is that people support them and start using them. Georgewilliamherbert 09:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very open to the application of other guidelines, but these should be actual guidelines, not proposed guidelines. Many of the Keep votes have been based upon treating a proposal as an accepted guideline, but the differences are significant. See WP:Policies_and_guidelines#The_differences_between_policies.2C_guidelines.2C_essays.2C_etc. and my related arguments above(with Agha Nader). The Behnam 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is noted in a bunch of places, one way that a guideline which is proposed becomes accepted is if people say "I agree, we'll use that". This is part of the WP consensus process. Georgewilliamherbert 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you realize that proposals are not "accepted" until they are authorized by consensus. This page is not the discussion page for WP:ROYAL, and so it is odd to presume that the consesnsus on this page establish WP:ROYAL as an accepted guideline. After all, the talk page for the proposal is and has been the appropriate venue for attempts at establishing consensus on WP:ROYAL, none of which have succeeded. How quaint it is that you continue to cling to the notion that WP:ROYAL has legitimacy as determined by consensus. The Behnam 13:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepShe is notable to many people across the world. She has been in many articles in magazines, etc. Azalea_pomp

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.