Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States support for ISIS


 * 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 delete. The high participation and rather pronounced trend towards deletion over the last several days of this discussion indicate that relisting is not needed to determine consensus as it now clearly appears. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

United States support for ISIS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TNT per rather poor sourcing (RT, Sputnik, Mint press, Iran state media) coupled with a side of WP:SYNTH (e.g. the US allowing an ISIS retreat from Raqqa prior to pushing into the city and conquering it from ISIS) - sourced to BBC. More importantly, the is a WP:POVFORK of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War, American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, International military intervention against ISIL - we don't need a separate article detailing allegations of support (contra the mainstream view of a US-ISIS conflict) - if this material is due for inclusion (doubtful) - it should be on the main article(s). Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is the sub-section this set of allegations of a POVFORK of in the ISIL page.Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to International military intervention against ISIL. Arguably there is enough independent RS coverage to ring the WP:N bell for this topic. But just because something is notable doesn't automatically mean it deserves its own stand alone article. In this case it doesn't. Merge the stuff that is reliably sourced and leave the fringe crap out unless it is backed by solid RS secondary sources. RT and Sputnik are not RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's very little here that is salvageable. What is reliably sourced - is already there. Some of supposedly reliably sourced stuff - e.g. "Russia and some Afghan local officials have claimed that US has supplied arms to ISIS fighters in Afghanistan" sourced to this omits the rather significant "There's no evidence to support the allegations, but they are another prime example of Russia's active information warfare campaign against the US.". Icewhiz (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and leave the fringe crap out unless it is backed by solid RS secondary sources. RT and Sputnik are not RS. This is not the place discuss about that, FYI. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 21:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The quality of sources is always an appropriate topic in AfD discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, gave out the wrong signal. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 18:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Keep or Merge - I don't see it as a POVFORK. ISIS and ISIL are not the same. The title is quite frankly, misleading and could be changed. But this is pretty significant considering the current affairs and should have separate article. This is a sensitive topic and problems with NPOV and COI are likely to arise. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. Could be moved to userspace but this needs much publicity and attention to readers and other editors. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ISIS and ISIL are not the same. Our own article on the group would seem to disagree. Novusuna talk 20:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Any good sources that aren't already used in the main articles on the conflict should be incorporated into those articles, but we don't need a separate article pushing a point of view contrary to the main articles; that's the definition of a WP:POVFORK. Novusuna talk 21:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * International military intervention against ISIL and this are not POVFORK. They are two separate POV. If necessary they could be merged with a different title. And ISIS/ISIL has become much bigger than Iraq and Syrian war, and spread internationally. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wizard - you have just defined a POVFORK. We do not need multiple US/ISIS relationship articles each covering the issue from a separate POV - our goal should one article, weighing different POVs per due weight as reflected in RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yes technically, depending on how you look at it. In that case both are POVFORK to one another. I would copy relevant content from here and merge. A neutral title should be created for that. Because of this bureaucracy, I would rather keep it and then consider a merge. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. As Wizard and Ad Orientem said, article included some well sourced material. I agree we need more Rs and I am going to find to more RS. But I am really against to merge article into International military intervention against ISIL. It is obvious that US position about ISIL is changing. I want to suggest to alter title to Us-ISIL relation included two position, support for some day and vice versa or alleged United States support for ISIS.Saff V. (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and it doesn't appear any reliable source uses the terminology used in this article title ("support"). As said above, what's backed up by reliable sources is already included in other related articles. Leviv&thinsp;ich 08:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, such RS, bloomberg,nbc, BCC, aljazeera and lead me to chose "support" for title.It would be great to tell about your suggestion for title based on mentioned sources. Saff V. (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those support "support". BBC for instance covers the US decision to allow an ISIS convery to flee Raqqa - as part of the US-led assault and takeover of Raqqa - this is a common stratagem to avoid a costly fight to the death. If this constituted support, then we could create (not - POVFORK) Syrian regime support of Syrian rebels based on the many (dozens at least) convoys allowed to leave (usually to Idlib) throughout the war - Reuters). Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about alleged support?Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Russian and Iranian allegations of US support to ISIS? Might be a notable study of fake news - buts seems better covered in Propaganda in the Russian Federation and Propaganda in Iran). Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't stress on to create article by fringe sources, as I noticed above such RS bloomberg confirmed US has supported ISIS Or a former US top military intelligence director, General Mike Flynn confirmed it, but i am not against to re-title. If your suggested subject is verified by RS, why not to create. Any way I will respect to result of AFD.Saff V. (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is regarding notability, not the content. Allegations and propaganda are not necessarily fake news. Even if they turn out to be, they should be mentioned. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 16:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is actually not about notability. The nom is on WP:POVFORK grounds (with a side of WP:TNT) - we have existing articles covering ISIS/US relations - and this article is a POVFORK of said articles - WP:DEL5 (and WP:DEL6/WP:DEL14 in regards to TNT). Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with TNT because the content is quite significant. For DEL5, a redirect is possible, for DEL6 and DEL14, I would argue it is notable hoax at the very least. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename There are a lot of sources that make this article notable particularly about the US. The US regime has been accused many times of supporting ISIL directly or indirectly with arms and weapons. However, The US has dismissed these claims by saying that the US weapons were transferred to ISIL by "mistakes". Would be more NPOV to put "allegedly" in the title since they US never admitted of doing these mistakes intentionally. Also there are a lot of sources that claim the US has been moving ISIL members to safe places I don't know whether the US has commented on these allegations or not. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the topic itself is fine, but the contents are a load of contextless sentences, claims, and synthesis. And the main section makes no distinction between real support and inadvertent or accidental support. Also there is nothing given for the US's side of things, no content is given in the article about the US government trying to defend themselves, quotes, statements, nothing. A good first step for restructuring the article would be to have a section dedicated to "Claims", statements saying the US supports ISIS, including Donald Trump's and the Ayatollah's. And definitely rename the article "Alleged US support of ISIS". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 13:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I've been thinking it over and the entire article boils down to Iranian and Russian claims that the US directly supported ISIS, and then other claims that US incompetence lead to ISIS's growth. This can be summarized in like two paragraphs and added to the "Allegations of state support" section of the main ISIS article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 11:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep  Keep and rename: I think the title merits having a stand alone article per the above/used sources. As for the title, I think it needs to be discussed elsewhere as to whether or not "alleged" should be used or not. That said, I found Brightgalrs's comment fair enough. Keep does not mean the article is good at the moment. -- M h hossein   talk 13:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the second and though after searching more, I the title needs to change so that it shows there are some allegations. -- M h hossein   talk 11:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per SharabSalam 110.74.199.28 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: if this article is redirected, it seems to me the best place to redirect it to is the United States section of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Per ImmortalWizard. In addition merging to nominated article make it too long so it isnot usefule alternative. I agree with renaming based on reliable sources.Hispring (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment:To clarify the issues, I collected several sources addressed the subject:
 * 1) The U.S. watched Islamic State fighters, vehicles and heavy equipment gather on the outskirts of Ramadi...by bloomberg
 * 2) Flynn (National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump) said that conditions in US-controlled Iraqi prisons resulted in radicalization of thousands of young Iraqis, some of whom would later become some of the top ISIS commanders...by Aljazeera
 * 3) Rand Paul, junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky, said that the U.S. government of indirectly supporting ISIL in the Syrian Civil War... by The Hill
 * 4) The founder of ISIS has been introduced American political figures such as Obama or Hillary Clinton ... by CNN AND foxnews
 * 5) According to the Russian Defence Ministry, the US has deliberately slowed the pace of its assault on Isis... by independent
 * 6) US and Saudi Arabia arms significantly enhanced Isis’ military capabilities.... by another report of independent
 * 7) ISIS weapons arsenal included some purchased by U.S. government... by NBC
 * 8) Russia accuses U.S. of training former Islamic State fighters in Syria... by reuters
 * 9) ISIL weapons traced to US and Saudi Arabia...by another report of aljazeera
 * 10) allowed hundreds of ISIS fighters including their most notorious members to secretly evacuate city of Raqqa ... BY BBC Saff V. (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This Bloomberg article says the US "left the fighting to Iraqi troops, who ultimately abandoned their positions...the U.S.-led coalition provided both airstrikes and surveillance to the Iraqi Security Forces in support of the Ramadi defense...The current rules of engagement are intentionally designed to restrict the effectiveness of air power to prevent potential collateral damage...That results in ISIS getting the freedom of action so they can commit genocide against civilians...the rules of engagement for U.S. airstrikes were not the only setback in the battle for Ramadi. The Iraqi military withdrew from its positions in the city..."
 * Flynn nowhere in this interview says anything about the US supporting ISIS.
 * "ISIS, an al Qaeda offshoot, has been collaborating with the Syrian rebels whom the Obama administration has been arming in their efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Paul explained" is not suggesting that the US supports ISIS. Saying "a friend of a friend" isn't the same thing as saying "a friend".
 * Trump said Obama founded ISIS by leaving Iraq. He didn't say the US supports ISIS. This campaign hyperbole is not taken as a serious accusation by anyone, especially since ISIS was founded in 2003, five years before Obama was elected.
 * According to the Russians...
 * This is about a report that found "...most weapons in Isis’ arsenal were captured from the Syrian and Iraqi armies...90 per cent of the weapons and ammunition overall were made in Russia, China and Eastern Europe..."
 * This is about the same report, but note: "...the U.S. government has supplied weapons to Syrian armed groups, first to fight the Assad regime and then to assist the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the fight against the Islamic State. Some of ISIS’ weapons are also thought to have been pilfered from military stockpiles while others were purchased illicitly...In propaganda videos, ISIS frequently showcases the U.S.-made weapons in its arsenal, much of it presumed to have been seized from Iraqi military stockpiles...But in reality, American weapons make up only a minor portion of the small arms documented by CAR. Chinese and Russian arms account for more than 50 percent, with the ubiquitous AK-47 in heavy use. CAR found most of ISIS' weapons were made before 1990, the year Iraq came under an arms embargo."
 * "The chief of the Russian General Staff has accused the United States of training former Islamic State fighters in Syria to try to destabilize the country."
 * Same CAR report: "The research said most weapons were looted from the Iraqi and Syrian armies, however, some were originally supplied by other nations involved in the conflict to Syrian opposition groups fighting against President Bashar al-Assad...About 90 percent of weapons and ammunition used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) originated in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe, with Russian-made weapons outnumbering those of any other country."
 * The deal to let IS fighters escape from Raqqa – de facto capital of their self-declared caliphate – had been arranged by local officials. It came after four months of fighting that left the city obliterated and almost devoid of people. It would spare lives and bring fighting to an end. The lives of the Arab, Kurdish and other fighters opposing IS would be spared. But it also enabled many hundreds of IS fighters to escape from the city. At the time, neither the US and British-led coalition, nor the SDF, which it backs, wanted to admit their part.
 * None of these suggest the US supports ISIS in any way. Leviv&thinsp;ich 06:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But by these RS it is undeniable to accuses US. we can't disregard.Saff V. (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the reliable sources don’t actually accuse the US of anything (except perhaps incompetence). It is only the Russians and Iranians (and apparently you) who link these disparate events together under the banner of “support”. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Russian and Iranian media have made allegations. Yes. But this is common in conflict - all sorts of allegations are made on the opposing side(s). We already cover the multitude of allegations of state support (basically - everyone accuses everyone else) in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - we don't need a WP:POVFORK for this specific set of allegations (which are made by sources generally considered to be highly unreliable - to the point they are seen as the information warfare arm of the states operating them). Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a glance illustrates article is based on US press and non Iranian or Russian! your opinion lead me to re title article. I am sure you believe in some material of article are supported by RS and we have to merge, but suggested articles are too long and after a while we have to split them. why don't we select best title for the new main article that include material belong to US-ISIS relation?Saff V. (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. If anything, this belongs to the page Russian propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * while article is based on American RS, Why it could be Russian propaganda?Saff V. (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Some American/British RSes don't support "support" (e.g. the convoy allowed to flee Raqqa after a long battle and prior to the final American takeover). Other American sources - e.g. "Russia and some Afghan local officials have claimed that US has supplied arms to ISIS fighters in Afghanistan" sourced to this covers Russian claims - and omits the rather significant "There's no evidence to support the allegations, but they are another prime example of Russia's active information warfare campaign against the US.". Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As above comment. Belongs on Sputnik. Sick. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * do you ignore 10 RS be listed above? they reveal US accusation to support ISIS.Saff V. (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Besides the outright unreliable sources, there are serious NOR issues. What material is taken from reliable ones is cherry-picked and COATRACKed together to present a narrative and conclusion none of the reliable sources put forth themselves. It is one big WP:SYNTH violation. Bits and pieces might merit inclusion in other articles, but not strung together as they are here. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The content that is from unreliable resources should be ignored in this debate (they should be removed of course, unless they could be proven by other RS). Based on the rest of the content, the article should me deleted, kept or merged, depending on NPOV (UNDUEWEIGHT) and FORK. So far, the mergings suggested to are ISIL, International military intervention against ISIL and Russian propaganda (I might miss something). I think the article can stand on its own. However, if it is going to be merged, it should be done to each of the suggestions depending on what's relevant. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:SYNTH problems and WP:OR problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I personally agree with Mhhossein. 194.44.246.83 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not one of the reliable sources cited indicate that "United States support for ISIS" is a topic that has received legitimate coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Fork, many unreliable sources, and the reliable sources there are do not support the statements they are being used to substantiate. Any truly RS material could be added to the respective articles they concern.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition to be presented above, It is interesting to review these RS:
 * 1) the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of Islamic state ... by the guardian
 * 2) by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, which uncannily predicts the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida- controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq ... by the guardian
 * 3) These included a powerful anti-tank missile launcher bought from a Bulgarian manufacturer by the U.S. Army and wielded by ISIS only weeks later ... by newsweek
 * 4) The state senator referred to plans by the CIA to transfer arms ... supplying all rebels, including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda. We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly ... by presstv
 * 5) Over the years, growing jihadi influence compelled the U.S. to cut CIA support for such groups... by newsweek Saff V. (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, commentisfree is the opinion section of the Guardian, and thus is not a RS for statements of fact, only the opinions of the authors. The Newsweek source does not at all indicate support by the U.S. The sentence immediately before what you quoted says "weapons believed to have been procured by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, shipped to Syrian rebels and later obtained by ISIS" and earlier in the article "Supplies of materiel into the Syrian conflict from foreign parties—notably the United States and Saudi Arabia—have indirectly allowed IS to obtain substantial quantities of anti-armor ammunition....the U.S. had been supplying arms to insurgents opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since at least 2012 and, when ISIS began rapidly seizing territory in 2013 and 2014, many U.S.-armed rebel groups were either defeated by the incoming militants or joined them." This is not even an allegation of support, it is explaining how weapons meant for anti-Assad rebels wound up in IS hands. There is no claim that the U.S. intentionally supplied IS with material support. To say so is a misrepresentation of the source. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Really we don't gather here to review sources line by line,in this case I would to notice to the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) got its hands on vast supplies of weapons by taking advantage of U.S. from newsweek, or about weapons and army equipment look at bloomberg, nbcnews, aljazeera. My offer still stands, we can based on suggested sources re title article to allegation at least but not to delete.Saff V. (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Guardian commentisfree section sometimes runs letters from readers - however in this case it ran Corbyn's aide's op-ed - who has a rather particular set of opinions regarding Russia and Syria - see Seumas Milne - definitely not a RS. US weapons (as well as the many more Russian weapons) showing up in ISIS's hands has little to do with support - ISIS pilfered most of these from rival groups, and bought some on the black market - as made clear in the sources cited above. Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your idea about ''The state senator referred to plans by the CIA to transfer arms ... supplying all rebels, including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda. We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly? Saff V. (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or the U.S. continued to train and equip Syrian rebels, using local allies like Jordan and Turkey as intermediaries. In its report, Conflict Armaments Group included dozens of photographs of EU-manufactured weapons believed to have been procured by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, shipped to Syrian rebels and later obtained by ISIS, which moved them between Iraq and Syria as well as Over the years, growing jihadi influence compelled the U.S. to cut CIA support for such groups'? Saff V. (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Newsweek reporting on Conflict Armament Research report does not support "support" (it merely supports the well known factoid that ISIS pilfered arms also from the FSA (which at times was very-very weak - with forces crossing the border dissipating shortly thereafter)). As for Press TV - well - it is Press TV for starters, and the interviewee is Virginia State Senator Dick Black (politician). State senators are not privy to federal matters and in particularly not to foreign affairs. Black is also noted for Dick Black (politician). I can't quite see how Black would merit inclusion on any Syria related article. Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI I reverted some of these additions to the article (see my edit summary for reasoning), and posted about the PressTV one at WP:RSN. Leviv&thinsp;ich 18:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per much of the above, especially 's point-by-point rebuttal to, whose case as presented reminded me of a typical political entertainment television "investigation", usually (and in this case) by the right. Mis-characterization of sources, lack of perspective or proportion, outright lies, stretching to ascribe illogical motives when common sense dictates otherwise, even the provocative title "United States support for ISIS" (implying intent), etc. – it's all there. I'll go to the political entertainment media for that sort of self-abuse if I want to feel like leaving the planet. It doesn't belong here. —[  Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 16:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the comments above. Looks like a POV haven to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I didn't read this article but I support United States intervention against ISIL (as a WP:SPINOFF article). w umbolo   ^^^  22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alleged formal (overt or covert) US support for, or private-sector American channels of aid to, or US-originating resources used by ISIL (which are the same or even related claims and do not all constitute a fused thing that could logically be called "US support", a concept intended to mislead and to push both an anti-American viewpoint and what amounts to a conspiracy theory) can be discussed at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for inclusion in saner form, to the extent it can be properly sourced, stripped of blatant WP:SYNTH, and is actually within WP:NOT boundaries.  The "article" under discussion is basically a massive persuasive definition and equivocation fallacy, manufactured around manipulating radically different ways to interpret the string "United States support". PS: I'm not sure why people are proposing a "US intervention  ISIL" page in response to an AfD about the opposite idea. I have no in-theory objection to such an article existing, but it's off-topic for this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several RS that accuse US to support (at least), please consider The state senator (Richard Hayden Black) mentioned to plan for transferring CIA arms thought some countries in order to supply all rebels, "including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda." he declared "We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly". I believe in some drawbacks of article as well as I think that solution would be re title article to US allegation in .... rather than delete! Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Black is a state senator not a US senator, he is not credible, his views are seen as fringe theories.Dkspartan1835 (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And PressTV is hardly reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as a case of WP:SYNTH. feminist (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, or failing that, redirect or merge anything Reliable and legitimate. Severe problems with unreliable sources, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and misrepresentations. RT is utterly unreliable, and the Iranian source aren't much better. It's absurd to suggest that hardware stolen or diverted to ISIS by third parties constitutes support. It's absurd to suggest that Trump's wacky quote about "Obama founded Isis" belongs in here. It's absurd to suggest two instances of the US not attacking constitutes "support" - especially when at least one was a tactical decision to protect civilian lives. It's absurd to suggest that prisons being a metaphorical "training ground" constitutes support. And I was particularly unimpressed when Iranian PressTV cited a rant by someone who is basically an elected dogcatcher in Virginia, as if that accurately represents or reflects US foreign policy. This isn't even a WP:POVFORK, because a POVFORK would actually require proper sourcing to support the alternate POV. In this case the only POV being presented are things being falsely represented as "support" along with a dash of routine RT-fiction. There's a damn good reason we don't cite RT for anything but Russia's official position and (occasionally) for basic uncontroversial facts. Alsee (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't seem to be any evidence for actual US support of ISIS in reliable sources. Perhaps the accusations themselves are worth including, but not in an article as misleading as this. Maybe if there were an article "United States-ISIS relations", it could describe the whole relationship and give these accusations of support their proper context. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever can be salvaged from reliable sources (which isn't that much) into International military intervention against ISIL. Beyond that, this is a POV/conspiracy-leaning fork. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - this is a POV fork Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, or move to a more NPOV title (one that contains the word "alleged"). But, even then, the article will need some serious trimming to clear out the WP:OR, like the entire Raqqa and Ramadi section for instance. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.