Deletion of Anti-Iranian sentiment (3rd nomination)

Comment: poorly sourced, while it may exist, there doesn't seem to be a real term to describe the big idea, nor are there any scholarly opinions discussed in the article, like there are for other prejudices. It also is POV, as it discusses it by arabs and by the United States only, while showing no attempts to show a worldwide opinion outside of these two groups. Seems to violate 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: and/or apply the '''Daniel Brandt solution'''—merge to ''relevant'' articles where the other side of the story can be heard. As it stands, the article is a hopeless essay mixing apples and oranges from throughout the history, effectively stripping the underlying causes of the conflicts and presenting only the end result—supposed anti-Iranian sentiment—as a given fact. This is a clear violation of : the article cherry-picks the facts from sources which describe the anti-Iranian acts, and reaches an implicit conclusion that the anti-Iranian sentiment is a historic constant. It is unclear how  can be even reached with this concept. Apart from excellent arguments by Ahwaz above, let me briefly go through the article's contents
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:NPOV)

Comment: The claim that this article is original research because the sources "are not notable", is not an acceptable reason to delete the article, according to . This user has also just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian women|Iranian women and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian women|List of Iranian wonmen for deletion in the past week. Curious, this trend of AFDs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JNN)

Comment: per ,  and precedent of the deletion of other "anti-x sentiment" articles. Most of them are just original reseatch, POV magnets
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Wikipedia should always have a subject on something, even if unencyclopedic and POV-pushing; as long as, well, it's sourceable. The movie 300? Didn't you guys see that? The fact that a few very zealous Iranians think this movie has a sinister anti-Persian agenda - well, that means it ''must'' be encyclopedic. Why would we want Wikipedia to be neutral and factual; then we could no longer include fringe opinions and present them as obvious fact. As long as a few fringe people think something, it needs inclusion - even if it's not written in a POV tone. I for one think we need an article on the Anti-Semitism shown by Jesus, as well as one talking about Harry S. Truman's communist agenda (no need to write that 98% of the academic world thinks it's nonsense). Finally, I have to agree with the preponderance of other , , and "count the reference" arguments above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:PERNOM)

Comment: It is simuilar to Anti-Semitism, anti Iranianism is a otable subject that affects many Iranians in the diaspora on a persoanl level
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)