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:
Delete if this dataset ever existed, it doesn't appear to have ever been cited in research, nor does it appear to be accessible either directly from the compilers or in online corpora databases. -- LWGtalk18:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was draftified, then moved back without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me20:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even know where to start, if there are factual errors correct them. (and considering the ongoing situation that broke out yesterday additional information may need to be added almost daily). I don't see which of the 14 reasons for deletion would qualify here and have to question if it was just nominated because someone didn't like the conclusions people might be able to draw from the information provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGoodEgg (talk • contribs) 02:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
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]
I don't think this AfD/merger proposal is "completely out of line". We could(and probably should) devote much more space on the Iran-Israel relations page than a singular paragraph to cover this subject. Originalcola (talk) 17:45, 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 article's 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]
No "uncomfortable historical realities" would be removed due to (un)popularity, or at least from what I can see I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Originalcola (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Having a separate article allows for an appropriate amount of detail that couldn't be sufficiently covered by the proposed merge target without derailing the focus of the latter. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at 15:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nom & keep article The article's scope and content look pretty different from the previous. Also: this here separate article lets us have a deeper level of details/sources that can't be properly contented at the proposed merge target. Retain this well sourced article, which cannot be considered a fork, as its subject matter is highly specific. XavierItzm (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having gone through and edited this article significantly just now, I think it is essentially the same article as before the merge. It also has major problems. Some whole sections are/were sourced to a single writer, and this makes the POVfork issues worse. It's also an odd focus, when we do t usually focus on inter-state grievances in this sort of detail. Should we, for instance, have an article Israeli rhetoric on Iran? Or Al-Qaeda's policy on the destruction of America? Because that's currently what this feels like—a one-sided take on something that, while it's obviously true, is better placed within context elsewhere rather than feeling like it's written with an agenda. Lewisguile (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, as of the posting of this reply I don't believe anyone replying with arguments opposed to merging or deletion are canvassers or writing with bad faith, even if I think some arguments are more emotional than rational personally. AssanEcho (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is common, in cases where an AfD centers around a PoV fork to get a lot of editors saying they want to keep because the topic is notable. We know the topic is notable. Because there is a whole other article on it. Nobody wants to delete Iran-Israel relations. But, frankly, when Israel starts bombing a regional enemy and suddenly a POV fork appears that wants to assert that really it's the enemy's fault there's a pretty serious WP:NPOV concern that makes such a POV fork rather problematic. Reliable information should be retained on the appropriate destination page but this appears to be a POV push. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The off-wiki canvassing and abuse of process is also concerning. Not surprised its happening at anti-wikipedia accounts on Musk's X (who's views about our project we know pretty well). Gotitbro (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Iran–Israel relations - As in the previous discussion the issue here isn't notability, that really isn't in dispute. I don't think this article is a recreation of the previous article has severe NPOV issues as in the previous deletion, but I think it would be better served merged into this existing article especially since this topic is so intertwined with Iranian-Israeli relations. I don't know if this is a POVFORK but I don't think the article should stand either way. Originalcola (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iran-Israel relations. The page is so on the nose it could be used as the example for the POVFORK explanation page. The flood of comments saying how relevant and important it is because of today's strikes makes the motivations of the page creation even more circumspect. 81.155.26.209 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article deletion as proposed by OP. Article seems a decently well-written (with scholarly/academic treatment of the subject) on a major subpart of Iranian national policy for multiple decades. Seems well explicated for an encyclopedic treatment, well sourced, and is sufficiently large to be inadequately covered inside another, more general, article on calls for the destruction of Israel. This argues for keeping it, as a contribution to the expansive encyclopedia of human knowledge, Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant POV fork crafted from a variety of articles to push a Zionist POV in the backdrop of Israel's attack on Iran. Koshuri(グ)04:44, 14 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]
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.
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 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.
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:
