This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Iran. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Iran|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Iran. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Middle East.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Oppose (creator). I respectfully disagree with the claim that this article is a "recreation" of anything. This article is focused on a different topic: it examines Iran's official policy and strategic posture toward the destruction of Israel, as characterized by a range of reliable secondary sources. It does not merely document rhetorical calls or statements made by various actors, but rather explores a long-term, very grounded policy, which includes several aspects: military doctrine, foreign relations, proxy activity, and nuclear strategy, all directed at eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. The content, sources, and framing are substantially different from the previous article, both in scope and intent. Therefore, it cannot be accurately described neither as a recreation nor as a POV fork. Rafi Chazon (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about Iran's relations with Israel, why can it not be at Iran-Israel relations? Why the POV framing of what is a complex issue and involves antagonism on both sides? VR(Please ping on reply)09:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not disputing your whole argument, I just want to say that an article being very well researched and sourced isn't an inherent reason to keep and article if there's issues with it being an article in the first place. AssanEcho (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not just that the article is well-researched and properly sourced. The focus here isn’t on rhetorical "calls", it's on a sustained strategy, policy, or project, however one chooses to label it. Iran's actions: funding and training militant groups to encircle Israel, promoting suicide bombings, advancing a nuclear program aimed at threatening Israel, and broadcasting countdowns to Israel's destruction, are not isolated statements. they are deliberate steps within a long-term vision. And this isn't my interpretation of course, it reflects the view of leading scholars. As Afshon Ostovar wrote in a 2024 Oxford University Press publication, "The goal of destroying Israel as a Jewish entity is a cornerstone of the Islamic Republic of Iran's regional strategy." This is clearly a notable topic, with enough coverage and depth to merit its own article. Rafi Chazon (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was not commenting to dispute your argument though I have my own issues with it (You can read them on my multi merge reply), and to comment I do actually believe you and your sources that this a concrete goal of the Iranian Government. I was just mentioning that any article's high quality is not necessarily a reason to keep it in any AFD. AssanEcho (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This really does feel, based on the above, like a POV fork of Iran-Israel relations - @Rafi Chazon it's clear you put a lot of work into this and nobody is suggesting it's non-notable. It's just that the page that is specifically about the relationship between these two states is a better home for this material than a breakaway page with an eye-catching header. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t see any reason to delete; the article seems both notable and detailed enough to stand on its own, with an appropriate link and summary in the general article. Jellyfish dave (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Personally, I think Vice Regent’s deletion of the article was completely out of line. As for the merits of the article itself, the scope is clear and well-defined. There’s a substantial body of reliable news reporting and academic literature that directly addresses this issue. It’s certainly notable — it’s a topic that has drawn the attention of numerous scholars and analysts, and it's clearly of interest within the broader body of literature.
This article has encyclopaedic value, as it demonstrates that a single paragraph on the Iran–Israel relations page wouldn’t come close to adequately covering the subject. The article should be retained. I’d encourage editors to prioritise collaborative solutions rather than tearing down articles that can be improved. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation
Publisher/Source
Type
Ostovar, Afshon (2024). Wars of Ambition
Oxford University Press
Academic
Maloney, Suzanne (2024). "The Middle East's Dangerous New Normal"
Foreign Affairs
Notable / Expert Commentary
Karsh, Efraim (2023). "The Israel-Iran conflict"
Israel Affairs (peer-reviewed journal)
Academic
Reda, Latife (2016). "Origins of the Islamic Republic's Strategic Approaches"
Middle East Critique
Academic
Freilich, Charles David (2018). Israeli National Security
Oxford University Press
Academic
Erdbrink, Thomas (2015)
The New York Times
Reliable Media
"Iran: Khamenei to lead Friday prayers..." (2020)
The Guardian
Reliable Media
Pileggi, Tamar (2018)
Times of Israel
Reliable Media
"Iran's Khamenei says..." (2021)
France 24
Reliable Media
"Iran leader says Israel a 'cancerous tumour'" (2020)
Oppose This article is much more focused on Iranian policy and thus is neither a simple fork of the other article nor a recreation in any sense. It embodies a different scope. Nehushtani (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose We only need to follow the news to see how relevant this article is and as for the article itself, it stands on its own 2 feet. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Comment But as an aside Vice regent if we're here to collaborate on an encyclopedia, consistency should be applied across Wikipedia and it shouldn't matter whether the article is pro-Israel or anti-Israel. But when things come down to a consensus or what not, this clearly isn't the case. There is a plethora of anti-Israel articles and I don't see people calling for merging them, deleting them or WP:POVFORK.I'm not accusing you of this - I'm saying this is a big picture zoomed out issue that needs to be address for the betterment of Wikipedia.MaskedSinger (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran-Israel relations, of which it's a WP:POVFORK; possibly also move some stuff to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. The argument that we should "look at recent events" to show why this narrow subset of that article supposedly needs to be its own article also shows that this article's creation is a matter of WP:RECENTISM, but even then, Iran-Israel relations is a more neutral article to cover this sort of thing and no valid reasons have been presented for why we would spin off a more POV copy of it. All the presented sources would be more accurately and thoroughly examined at that article - most of them are not specifically about Iran calling for the destruction of Israel but are about Iran / Israeli relations more generally, which means pulling out just that part and trying to make an article about it without covering the rest is misusing them as sources. --Aquillion (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the previous editors here, mainly because this topic is way too broad and complex to squeeze into just a subsection of Iran–Israel relations or Legitimacy of the State of Israel. We're not just talking about rhetoric or ideology here – this covers military strategy, foreign policy, proxy wars, educational systems, and a whole lot more. Iran's approach to eliminating Israel is so systematic and institutional that it really deserves its own standalone article, especially given all the academic research and journalism we have on it. If we merge this somewhere else, readers won't get the full picture of how extensive and significant this issue actually is. Eliezer1987 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why today, of all days, that article should be deleted. If anything, it should be expanded in order to provide even more background information.--Edelseider (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why Israel attacking Iran equates to needing an independent article about Iran calling for an end to Israel when we already have Iran-Israel relations. This appears not to be a policy based reason to retain an article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article presents a well-sourced, analytically distinct examination of Iranian state policy toward the destruction of Israel. Far from being a content fork, it addresses a clearly delineated and academically acknowledged phenomenon that spans military doctrine, proxy engagement, nuclear strategy, and ideological incitement. To reduce this topic to a subsection elsewhere would obscure its scope and scholarly relevance. At a time when Wikipedia must uphold its responsibility to present verifiable knowledge with intellectual integrity, removing such a page risks erasing a central dimension of contemporary Middle Eastern geopolitics and signals a troubling asymmetry in editorial standards. שלומית ליר (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multi Merge Honestly I don't see much in this article that necessitates it be it's own article and not be merged in with Calls for the destruction of Israel, Iran-Israel relations, or even New antisemitism (as much as I personally don't care for the articles concept myself). This articled existence is smelling of recency bias due to the current catastrophe in the middle east, and while this doesn't have much to do with this topic it does seem to be mildly biased against Iran by not mentioning any international or internal support for the various actions, policies and intions (though I do believe 100% that every example of dissent and distain is real).
Oppose This article offers a well-documented and clearly focused analysis of Iran’s official policy aimed at the destruction of Israel. Merging this topic into a broader article would dilute its significance and obscure a distinct, long-standing pillar of Iranian state policy. The sustained calls for Israel’s destruction by Iran’s leadership, their integration into official doctrine, and their geopolitical consequences warrant focused, in-depth treatment that a subsection cannot adequately provide. This is not a minor aspect of Iranian politics—it is a central theme with global ramifications, deserving its own dedicated space for clarity, documentation, and analysis. Deletion would set a dangerous precedent of removing uncomfortable historical realities from Wikipedia simply because they are unpopular. Cfgauss77 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was draftified. Two additional sources were added, and then it was moved back to mainspace. Neither of those two sources help show GNG. Then it was a contested prod. Current sourcing has zero in-depth coverage, and it might be due to language barriers, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me09:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is currently being addressed. I'm trying to collect as much information possible to make sure it can considered notable.PAper GOL (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The relevant criteria here are explained in WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. It is a little concerning that a couple of the reference links appear to be broken but if it is in fact a populated, legally recognized place, the article will likely pass. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
