Deletion of Anti-Iranianism

Comment: per GabrielF - this isn't the place for constructing |original arguments and |presenting them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SOAP)

Comment: per GabrielF.  Even by Wikipedia standards this article is extraordinarily  and .  #SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: I think the material contained within the article is notable although I believe it violates |NPOV in some respects.  Listing cities "likely to be attacked by the US" is a good example.  Surely this could be worded differently.--IRelayer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: merging any salvageable material into other articles (where sourceable). I have no doubt that any particular ethnicity, nation, minority or even special-interest group can be discriminated against; yet there is nothing in this article to support a ''particular'' "Anti-Iranianism" concept. None of the sources listed actually discuss such a topic or provide research into such a supposed phenomenon. Further, Google provides http://www.google.com/search?&q=Anti-iranianism+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-wikipedia next to no such usage of "Anti-Iranianism, outside of Wikipedia and mirrored copies. In sum, it's the very definition of |Original Research, intended to support a precept that does not conform to |Neutral Point of View policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: is  really a reason for deletion in this case??  If you don't like the fact that the word has an "ism" at the end, rename it to Anti-Iranian sentiment (per Anti-Japanese sentiment).  This is a simple move--it doesn't require deletion.  That rename should have happened even without the AfD -- I would do it now except I don't know how problematic the technical consequences (if any) would be (e.g., broken links
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Deleting such an article, filled with numerous legitimate sources, is not the answer. The topic of the article is absolutely valid. Any issues concerning POV (of which I personally don't see much in the way of problems within the article) or information that pertains more to the government rather than issues of prejudice and so forth can be worked out on the talk page. But there is literally no justification for deleting this article, nor is there any Wikipedia policy that would support such a deletion. In other words, deleting this article would constitute a severe breach of  and would reflect badly on Wikipedia in general. Prejudice and discrimination should be denied, minimized, or ignored, especially in light of our post-9/11 world. The fact that certain editors would rather delete the entire article rather than work towards consensus on its talk page (as far as inclusion of information), speaks volumes. Its just sad and depressing, especially for those of us from Iranian backgrounds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per nom. Prime example of this: ''After the revolution, Iran and the US were inevitably led to a collision course with the US making every effort to destabilize Iran with repeated allegations of Iran being a major if not the largest "state sponsor of terrorism"…'' Seriously, this article has some major original research issues that violate both   and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR)

Comment: per GabrielF. There's no doubt that what you could broadly call "anti-Iranian" sentiments exist. The problem is conflating various critisms of the government into some kind of ethnic hatred to advance a novel synthesis -ie 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)