Deletion of United States support for ISIS

Comment: as a case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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 {{em|not}} 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 , and is actually within #INDISCRIMINATE 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 {{em|against}} 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOT)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: I didn't read this article but I support United States intervention against ISIL (as a  article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: or failing that, redirect or merge anything Reliable and legitimate. Severe problems with unreliable sources, , , 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 , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:POVFORK)