This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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:
The speedy was declined, but this fails any sort of notability. The sources seem to be just made up and contradict themselves on top of that. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources don't seem to be reliable or significant, so I don't think that notability is established. There are also several pieces of nonsense, such as references which are in English or Spanish being described as "in Arabic", and dates which indicate that he was 10 or 11 years old when he received his doctorate. Of course any one of those could just be a mistake, but there are so many obviously false elements in the article that it becomes impossible to have any faith that any of it is reliable. Furthermore, the references don't actually support the content of the article to which they are attached. For example, the statement that Abdelnaser Abdelfatah is a businessperson, politician, and novelist has a citation to a web page which is just a list of rather trivial quotations from him, typical of which are "When the strong touch the happiness of the weak they will realize that their strength prestige and money are nothing but the strong is strong in mind faith love and affection and physical strength is not the same as true strength" and "Fear does not prevent death but it prevents life If you fear life has no value and if you die everything dies". Nowhere does it say anything about his being a politician or novelist. JBW (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems like nonsense. The sources state the subject's company Al-Agha Group was founded in 1995 (when the subject was 11?) but the company's own webpage states it was founded by the subject in 2013. Totally unverifiable purringmaggot (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Notability cannot be established. Neither the sources nor the article explains why he is a notable rescue guard or journalist. Article created by a cross-Wiki spamming effort and is deleted on dozen other Wikis. Pirehelo (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete – The article appears to rely on later literary traditions rather than contemporary historical evidence. In particular, the claim that Persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab women is presented as an established historical fact, but I could not find contemporary epigraphic or primary evidence confirming these marriages. If reliable independent sources establishing this distinct historical group cannot be provided, the article may fail Wikipedia's verifiability (WP:V) and notability requirements. Erterian History (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you for adding those tertiary sources. However, my concern is different. The article states that Persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab women as an established historical fact. Could anyone provide contemporary primary evidence (such as South Arabian inscriptions or other contemporary sources) confirming these marriages? If not, this claim appears to rely mainly on later literary traditions and should not be presented as an undisputed fact. Erterian History (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have read the Sources you added, And Both Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam summarize the traditional historical narrative, but neither provides contemporary Sixth-Century Evidence (Like inscriptions or other Primary Sources)Confirming that persian soldiers intermarried with local Arab Women.
My point is not that tradition is necessarily false, but rather that, in the apparent absence of contemporary evidence, Wikipedia should Avoid presenting these marriages as an established historcial fact.
I agree that the article should not present a disputed historical tradition as an established fact if the available scholarship does not support that level of certainty.
However, I do not think the absence of surviving contemporary inscriptions or other primary evidence, by itself, establishes that the claim is unsuitable for Wikipedia.
The Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica are reliable scholalry sources that discuss this tradition.
The lack of contemporary primary evidence does not necessarily make the claim unsuitable for Wikipedia,as long as it is clearly attributed to later sources.
I am happy also to change the wording so that the article does notpresent the marriages as an established fact, but as a tradition reported in later islamic sources.
For this reason, I believe the issue can be fixed by improving the wording and sourcing rather than deleting the article.
But nothing I said about the explanation is incorrect; the article attributes it to later Islamic traditions. If that's not true, then give me a contemporary source? Erterian History (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but it doesn't seem you do. You're still basing this on your personal deductions (also, it is not uncommon that later writings are treated as fact, it ultimately depends on what WP:RS says), please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You misunderstood me. I simply said it needs clarification because the article relies on later Islamic sources. What's wrong with what I said? Give me a reason. You're calling it my opinion, but it's a logical question? Erterian History (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You could simply write within the article that it mentions (Al-abnã in later Islamic traditions, not in contemporary sources or inscriptions.) Please don't try to change the subject; just answer the question.
While I see the issue, but the article mainly to discuss the problem regarding his existence and show critics regarding his supposed reign (as shown, al Isfahani might have gotten confused or simply invented Yazdegerd). I say keep it because I think we could try to find more sources on the matter and also because he isn’t the only sassanian ruler mentioned by a few or even only one source (Adur Narseh, Koshrow or Juvensher). I do wish to contribute more to this community and well this was a try. Sneakier (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I appreciate you, Sneakier. Respectfully, Adur Narseh is well attested by modern scholarship, so are the Khosrows during the collapse of the Sasanian Empire. Juvansher should definitely get re-evaluated though. But regardless if those articles have issues, that doesn't mean the trend should continue. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Well doesn’t Adur Narseh’s article say that he might have never ruled? Thats what I was referring to so including him in the king list could be debatable. Also I was referring to Khosrow "the usurper" not all of them at once because he only has one source which I found strange.
All of this aside, the idea behind the creation of the article would be to find more sources regarding this debated figure or just scholars saying why his supposed existence would be a hoax or a mistake. I hope that we could find more sources but for now maybe not delete the page but only remove him from the list of rulers?
And yes Juvansher should get a revaluation, his succesion is quite confusing, he is said to have preceded Boran but who did he succeed then?
With all of that I only mean good for the subject and I understand your concerns which are legitimate.
Respectfully, that's the issue, there is nothing about this figure from what I can find. His existence doesn't seem to be supported by scholarship. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: While this event is historically cool, even when viewed in the most gracious light, it isn't even newsworthy, let alone encyclopedia worthy. Fails on multiple fronts; WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:GOSSIP as already mentioned, but also a violation of WP:WWIN (in this case a fashion magazine), WP:CRYSTAL (in reference to it's indeterminate significance), and a borderline WP:SIGCOV issue (while yes it was covered by a handful of mainstream outlets, a single report in the NYT does not SIGCOV make). If in six months the cultural zeitgeist has any recollection of this, we can always revisit the discussion. Foxtrot620 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Foxtrot620: These are all great arguments, and I'm sure the article will be deleted. I must take issue with the fashion magazine slant though, we have developed deep historical coverage of red carpet fashions on Wikipedia, and this example had real resonnance with issues regarding looting and cultural exploitation etc. I think I felt emboldened by the creation of the Punch (monkey) article and other recent internet trends - I never really know where the line is in WP:RECENT or WP:SIGCOV. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as it is not something to have a separate article on. It can be included in Zendaya's page itself but should not have a separate article of its own.Farhanansari1994 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment Do these earrings have a name? It would be nice to shift the focus of the article from the incident involving Zendaya to the earrings themselves as objects. The recent incident can then be covered in a paragraph or so. Keivan.fTalk21:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I believe they could also be ancient gold plaques repurposed as earings. Article shoukd probably be resited within the main hoard from which they were allegedly found. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sounds like a good idea. It would be great to cover it with the other objects it was found together with, and then refer to the recent events in a sentence or two. Keivan.fTalk00:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I think any content that can be saved should be moved to the article covering the hoard and then we can delete this as a title, because I believe the title itself is not encyclopedic. Keivan.fTalk14:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The delete case seems stronger than merge, but there has been enough discussion to give this another week to avoid DRV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per NOTNEWS. Also, this is not particularly significant, and frankly surprising that they even had enough content to write an article on 'an actress wore a pair of earrings'
Delete per nom. A selective merge to Ziwiye hoard could be nice, but I'd like to wait a while to see if anyone cares about this in a few months. Otherwise a then irrelevant incident would be taking up way too much of that article, if the mention is any more than a few sentences. Hugo P. Behrmann (☎)07:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Appears to fail WP:NFILM - unreferenced since creation in 2007, and I cannot locate any sources. This film was previously kept as part of a mass nomination in 2010, but around half of those have since been deleted as well. The director's article was deleted after this AfD in 2021, then restored to draftspace after DRV (with the deletion endorsed), seemingly without any change. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok to delete. Did not find any mentions in ProQuest or EBSCO via Wikipedia Library where similar films are mentioned. Main result searching Google site:.ir was the production company website (now cited in the article). No significant coverage found in secondary sources, although it is possible they exist in Persian. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I was unable to find any sources that help notability, though I did not search in Persian. A lot of citations to books they have published and nothing else. As far as I am aware, fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. As PARAKANYAA rightly points out, the English sources here fail and just point back to the publisher's own catalog. Deleting a longstanding Iranian publisher without checking Persian sources is maybe a gap. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with @Charlie Zachary Allen Roth's comment. It probably shouldn't be deleted without someone checking. You could ask some of these people: Category:Iranian Wikipedians.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seems to be a general sense that there may be sources in Farsi. Relisting in case any can be found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I guess it remains to be seen whether this does not pass any notability guideline in the first place. We need better info before discussing this properly either way Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I said "press release type", aka churnalism. The first piece is a good example of this. It's all just listings of who they declared won the award, interviews, or speech recaps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Plenty? The history, the origins, who established it, how it is funded, how it is decided, what the reception to the reward is, significant coverage is what would make it notable. Compare the National Book Award. Simple copying of their lists is not independent or sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG does not say anything about the content of coverage. Coverage should be significant (means not trivial), independent and reliable. That's enough. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It says it must be 1. significant 2. reliable 3. independent. Simply copying the lists they created is not independent or significant, WP:INTERVIEWS and speech recaps are also not independent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Evidently this is a misunderstanding about "independent" and "significant". "Independent" means the news agency should not be affiliatedto the topic. "significant" means the coverage should not be "trivial"; it should be directly and in detail. It doesn't have anything to do with the content of the coverage. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Another misunderstanding. First, I can send here dozens of links about the reward which are not interviews. Second, the function of interviews regarding notability depends on the interviewee and interviewer. Clearly, an interview with an independent publisher about the rewards counts toward notability. Third, There is not even one mention of "copy" in the GNG text.:)) Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If you have sources that are clearly 1. reliable 2. significant 3. independent coverage, then by all means send them.
"Clearly, an interview with an independent publisher about the rewards counts toward notability", no, it would not, unless there was significant material in there that was not the interviewee's own words - in which case we can just ignore the quoted material and count that towards sigcov.
If a source simply copies another source, the material that it did not make does not somehow become independent or more reliable by virtue of being copied. The reliability is from its origin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This is mere repetition. Again you are talking about copying. The Oscar awards are also copied in all news agencies. Does it mean they are not notable? no. The interview is an independent source (by an independent publisher) about the awards. Then it counts. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If somehow the only source the Oscars had ever gotten were sources copying their awards lists with no commentary then no, they would not be notable.
Only the award list is repeated. There is no repetition in the other parts of the text. But again, there is no mention of copying or repetition in GNG. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A source reprinting another source does not make it from that source; it's reliable for the fact that they said these things but it would not make it independent or the information itself any more reliable. Also the ISNA source you linked is not sigcov it is a photo set. The IRNA source is literally just a transcript of a speech and then the list they made. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Of the first page, the 1st. is the same, the second is a tag, not an article, the rest are all routine press releases asking for submissions to the festival (e.g. , or are yet more speech transcripts. Another is just a tag again. This one mentions it only in passing in an article about children not enjoying reading. These are not significant or independent pieces of coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further source analysis would help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!04:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
