Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy

Add links
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merge‎ to Iran-Israel relations. Many of the keep/oppose !votes assert that the topic is notable; as others have pointed out, that is not the issue at hand here. The issue is whether it is a POV fork, and where to discuss the topic if it is. Given the pov, WP:COATRACK, and other concerns, it appears most appropriate to merge into the parent article and discuss the content there first, creating a WP:SPINOUT if necessary due to length. There is strong support for a merge to Iran-Israel relations in particular, so that is where I am closing this. Editors are welcome to discuss on that talk page whether some of this material should be merged to other articles, as suggested in this AfD. asilvering (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy

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

Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article looks like a recreation of the old article "Calls for the destruction of Israel", which was merged in January 2025 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination)). This article might as well be called "Iranian calls for the destruction of Israel" and thus it has the same problems as the previous one – it is a WP:POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. Propose merge just like the previous article. VR (Please ping on reply) 08:35, 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]
Support Merge This is an overly specific page. It should be merged into either Legitimacy of the State of Israel or Foreign relations of Iran where it would be more at home. Genabab (talk) 08:53, 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]
    Agreed. In this time, such an article is quite important to understanding the conflict between Israel and Iran. SleepTrain456 03:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. POVFORK. Gotitbro (talk) 09:08, 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) The Economic Times Semi Reliable Media
"Iran's Khamenei tells visiting Hamas chief..." (2024) Times of Israel Reliable Media
"Iran president sees 'countdown' to Israel's end" (2007) Reuters Reliable Media
"Iran's Rouhani calls Israel a 'cancerous tumor'" Al Jazeera Reliable Media
"Iranian President Repeats Calls..." (2023) Iran International Reliable Media
Goldberg, Jeffrey (2015) The Atlantic Notable / Expert Commentary
Hafezi, Parisa (2023) Reuters Reliable Media
Said et al. (2023-2024) Wall Street Journal Reliable Media
"Hamas received weapons and training from Iran..." (2023) The Washington Post Reliable Media
Fassihi, Farnaz (2024) The New York Times Reliable Media
Allin, Dana H.; Simon, Steven (2010). The Sixth Crisis Oxford University Press Academic
Sharma, Anu (2022). Through the Looking Glass Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group Academic
Magen, Ze'ev (2023). Reading Revolutionary Iran De Gruyter Academic
Reda, Latife (2016). (duplicate entry) Middle East Critique Academic
"Iranian protesters unveil clock..." (2017) The Independent Reliable Media
Azizi, Arash (2025) The Atlantic Notable / Expert Commentary
"Iranians Criticize Quds Day's Futility..." (2024) Iran International Reliable Media
Shamir, Shlomo Chabad.org Niche Media
Here’s a list of sources. Hopefully, these references make a strong case for the article’s importance. Cheers! KiltedKangaroo (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: no one is disputing this topic's WP:NOTABILITY, but rather it is a WP:POVFORK of an existing article.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if you look at the list of sources most of them seem to be about Iran Israel relations so I'd actually argue that they support the merge proposal. (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KiltedKangaroo (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KiltedKangaroo, the use of LLM-generated arguments in Wikipedia discussions, especially without proper disclosure, is not acceptable. Please describe your points in your own words. — Newslinger talk 14:15, 18 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) Sock strike[reply]
  • Merge to Iran–Israel relations. We don't need more POV forks and one just has to read the lead to see that POV fork is a perfect description. This article is an NPOV violation by design. Zerotalk 09:50, 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).
AssanEcho (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I agree. Nobody is suggesting that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 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]
  • Merge to Iran-Israel relations and Legitimacy of Israel to avoid WP:POVFORK. The canvassing mentioned upthread is quite worrying. Lewisguile (talk) 15:42, 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]
    Good point re: "notability". Lewisguile (talk) 17:30, 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]
    That will hopefully have minimal impact as the closer will discard any !votes from non-extended confirmed editors. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rafi Chazon, Edelseider, Jellyfish dave, etc. SleepTrain456 03:14, 17 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) Changed vote[reply]

Oppose - After looking at the Legitimacy of the State of Israel and Iranian-Israeli relations articles I couldn't see any disputes to suggest this page was created as a POV fork. The argument that this is a POV fork because of the focus on one side's viewpoint doesn't seem to hold here, the current article does seem to be written fairly neutral. I also think that my initial concerns about it being too intertwined with Iranian-Israeli relations were unfounded and that the topic can be covered outside a main article. A merge may add undue weight towards this topic on any page it's merged into, so keeping it separate may be a better choice here. The current title is ok as is, and I don't think that the article is the same as the previously deleted article despite being superficially similar in topic. Originalcola (talk) 14:29, 15 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]
  • Oppose, largely for the reasons given by שלומית ליר above.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 04:40, 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]
    This is an extraordinarily assumption of bad faith argument and is not a legitimate reason to delete. — Czello (music) 10:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Legitimacy of the State of Israel: Per the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for the destruction of Israel (2nd nomination) and because the article is a WP:POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel. TarnishedPathtalk 09:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ie oppose delete or merge) as this is a valid narrower topic not directly related to "legitimacy". Also the article is already big enough to split off a potential merger target. The broader article would be Iran–Israel relations, but this is already quite large. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge: I don't see this as a content fork, and instead has a well sourced presentation of Iranian policy which goes beyond the Iran–Israel relations article. — Czello (music) 10:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what the scope of this article has that would not already be in scope of Iran-Israel relations? VR (Please ping on reply) 23:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The relations article currently sits at over 9k words. Per WP:AS, this is at such a size that it should be split. Presenting a deeper dive into Iranian policy, which goes further than just the history of their relations and their current situation, can justifiably be presented as a separate article. — Czello (music) 10:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been thinking about the issues raised surrounding NPOV and accuracy, and was wondering if a move to "Iranian foreign policy regarding Israel [after 1979?]" or similar may allow a shift to a slightly broader framing that remains a subset of the broader Iran–Israel relations. CMD (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis I would agree that would be a valid article scope. However, I would prefer Iranian-Israeli relations (post-1979), because that could include both Iranian policies towards Israel and Israeli policies towards Iran. With your approach it would necessitate a parallel article Israeli policy regarding Iran (post-1979) and because policies are often reciprocal, a lot of content would be duplicated. Nevertheless, I think you suggestion is a good compromise.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the name of the article reads a bit awkwardly, it does not seem to be a POVFORK of Legitimacy of the State of Israel; to the contrary it seems a much more understandably scoped. And while I'm not familiar at all with the history here, it also doesn't look much like the linked previous version of Calls for the destruction of Israel. There's possible overlap with Iran–Israel relations, but agree with Graeme Bartlett that this seems an understandable sub-article, as a specific article on one aspect of a foreign policy. Perhaps there's a different way to package or rename this, but none of the proposed targets so far work. CMD (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis I'll explain this more below later today. The history is that for 1 year+ I struggled to understand what is the difference between anti-zionism (opposition to the existence of Israel), "Calls for the destruction of Israel" and saying Israel is not a legitimate entity (see this discussion and this one). Eventually, after reading a lot of the material I arrived at the conclusion that all of these articles talk about the same idea: that the creation of Israel was unjust. Critics of this idea tend to frame it in a negative way ("destruction of the state of Israel"), whereas proponents of the idea frame it positively ("returning Palestine to its indigenous inhabitants"). If someone had created an article called "Undoing the injustices of Zionism", I would similarly call it a POVFORK and propose it be merged into anti-zionism or legitimacy of Israel.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But this article topic isn't the general topic of destruction/legitimacy, it's specifically about one country's foreign policy (however accurate or poorly framed it may be), which "Undoing the injustices of Zionism" would not be. CMD (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis if its about Iran's foreign policy then makes the scope overlap with Iran-Israel relations. That is the standard naming convention for foreign policies on wikipedia. The fact that both articles have too similar of a scope makes it a "fork". The "pov" part in "povfork" comes from the fact that its framed not with a neutral POV, but rather with a blatantly pro-Israel/anti-Iranian POV. (BTW, I would be OK with an article called Iran-Israel relations (post-1979), as such a framing would divide by history and not by POV).VR (Please ping on reply) 23:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Relations articles do not cover all of foreign policy, and aspects of foreign policy do not make up all of a relationship. The standard convention for foreign policy articles is "Foreign policy of X", but sub-articles have whatever name most suits that topic. Open Door Policy for example covers a specific aspect of United States policy regarding China, which would not fit into the extremely long China–United States relations. CMD (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but Open Door Policy is a neutral framing for a split. This is not. See Berchanhimez's statement. They were very thorough. Simonm223 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Berchanhimez's statement was after my post was made, and my statement and the questions I raised refer to those made at the time of my post. CMD (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware they commented after you, thus "see below," but the conversation is ongoing and they quite thoroughly rebut the "not a POV Fork" argument. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Berchanhimez's statement proposes putting information into multiple pages, so it is hard to read that as rebutal of not a POV fork. The page is not a CFORK of any of the pages mentioned, so regardless of how it presents regarding POV (I have suggested another idea above), it is not a POVFORK. CMD (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article presumes that its stated topic is true, yet while researching another article I found that it's more disputed than pro Israel advocates let on. Specifically as I understand it Iran's stated goal is a one state solution where every resident has an equal vote. To characterize this as "destruction of Israel" (even though some Iranian officials use this kind of rhetoric) is not an unbiased framing. The category "incitement to genocide of Jews" is wholly misplaced because there was never any agreement that this was Iran's goal even back when Ahmedinejad was in office. (t · c) buidhe 11:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while contentious, it's accurate and well-sourced. I'm a big opponent of forks, except where the main article gets so big that it's getting difficult to navigate. A deletion would erase a notable topic and make us appear to countenance the policy; a merger would be unmanageable. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well sourced does not mean it gets an article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. TarnishedPathtalk 15:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear-cut POV cruft per several editors above. There is nothing useful for merging the article somewhere else, let alone keeping it. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czello and CMD. The Kip (contribs) 15:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The scope is clear and the topic notable. Any POV issues can be addressed through editing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after giving ample time to merge any useful content not already at destination(s). I would also support it being moved to draft space or a userspace pending those merges rather than leaving it up while merges happen. My reasoning is basically the same as others, mostly POVFORK but I am also very swayed by the arguments of buidhe above regarding how it's basically impossible to treat this topic with the context necessary in a separate page here. That has, as buidhe correctly points out, made it even easier for this to become a POV pushing page.
    If after merging and considering WP:DUE and WP:NPOV at the destination pages there is a concern for the size of the article in question, then splits can be considered from those articles through normal split processes - not by splitting out one POV like this. To clarify this - even if there was a valid reason to split some parts of the other article(s) out, this is not an appropriate way to split for size reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a significant and notable part of Iranian policy that they emphasize heavily, so the idea should be kept, but it probably could use a better name. Or possibly merge into Death to Israel, which may have been where that calls for... page should have gone. Its supposed POVness is kindof misleading because the topic. People are quick to think anything related to Israel will be POV, but it is a fact that this is a significant part of Iranian policy. I remember reading in the past few months that Iran had cut back on the Death to America chants I think after Trump was elected. I cant find any sources atm. Metallurgist (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it’s a significant enough and relevant enough policy that it deserves an article of its own. I don’t see how it supposedly violates WP:NPOV, the article is well written. LivLovisa (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article meets the requirements for notability under WP:GNG via sustained coverage in scholarly and reliable sources. It is not a WP:POVFORK but a valid sub-article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE focusing on Iranian state strategy. Concerns about title or balance should be addressed through editing, not deletion. A merge would obscure relevant depth and minimize a topic that clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. Whizkin (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Czello and others. The article is undeniably notable in my view, and any POV issues can be handled in the usual way, i.e. editing and discussion. GhostOfNoMan 12:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reviewing the pages I think that I do not see any POV forking in this article (if I am blind, please point to me out). I see that the article is well developed so it should not be deleted. Merging is a viable option, but it should be discussed on the talk page if this is going to be kept, but I do not see any convincing argument that would suggest a merge. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Graeme Bartlett and Bearian, et al. It's also a minor point that the main page on Iran–Israel relations is some 130k bytes already, and it is possible that this topic, which is clearly notable, would be subsumed if not otherwise its own standing article. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Rafi Chazon, KiltedKangaroo and שלומית ליר. This isn't a WP:POVFORK, since it does not ascribe to a particular POV; what it is is a WP:SPINOFF, and that's fine given the breadth of the subject. IR-ILs relations encompass more than just the current regime's policies on Israel, and if there's enough content to fill a separate article on this particular aspect of them (and there clearly is), then we should have one.
PS: reminding everyone that Israel is the only country for which we have a "legitimacy of the state of..." article, which should be a huge blinking red marker as to what's a POV fork and what isn't. François Robere (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to repeat what i said to Rafi Chazon, which is that an article being high quality is not inherently a reason to oppose it. Ideally all articles regardless of how "safe" they are to AFDs are high quality, well researched, coherent and informative articles. This article being of high quality as far as i can tell, that Rafi Chazon clearly spent many many hours on this still doesnt personally diswade me from arguing it should be merged with other articles like i argued in my comment, and also if youve kept this in mind and your argument as to why this article should be kept doesnt have to do with it being well refferenced then please do post!
AssanEcho (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete - While the topic of the article can work (though it would probably be better to slightly expand the scope to anti-Israel positioning in Iranian policy than just the destruction of Israel), that article as it currently is has very little of in Iranian policy and is more quotes and statements by various political and military actors. So, on those grounds the article does not currently meet its scope and should be deleted if no one is going to put in the work to rewrite the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:36, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Iranian_policy&oldid=1296898737"