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 keep. Discounting the votes by WP:SPAs, there is consensus that there is enough coverage of the topic to satisfy WP:GNG. While there were concerns raised about whether the article satisfied WP:NPOV, merely having the article does not present a violation (and offending content can be dealt with as usual) and thus doesn't warrant deletion. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Full rational added --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Illegal immigration to the United States and crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK that was created when one editor, E.M.Gregory, wasn't allowed to insert individual crimes by undocumented immigrants into the Illegal immigration to the United States or create the category "Crimes committed by illegal immigrants"[1]. The sole reason why this FORK exists is to list individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. The editor has in the past recognized that the academic research disagrees with him[2], and the desire to highlight individual crimes by illegal immigrants seems intended to give the false impression that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone. Illegal immigration to the United States and Immigration and crime articles both cover the existing research on the relationship between illegal immigration and crime, and neither article struggles with size problems. There was nothing that justified created a third page specifically about the topic, besides WP:POVFORK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: and anyone coming for the rfc at Talk will then see the tag on the article Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. This is an obvious POV fork. We now have Immigration and crime in the United States, which is currently a redirect on another page -> here]. If anyone wants to create something about it, that might be Immigration and crime in the United States, not the illegal immigration. However, even that would be problematic because there is no such correlation, as described here, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (edit conflict) WP:POVFORK clearly met here. Anything here can already be covered more neutrally on the articles listed above. SportingFlyer T·C 03:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP (article creator) the new article takes precisely the same POV as our page on Illegal immigration to the United States, that social science research shows no relationship between illegal immigrants and criminality. It is not a POV fork. 2.) Our page on Illegal immigration to the United States is very long, making it necessary for many subtopics to be hatnoted to more detailed pages. 3.) Despite the fact that illegal status does not correlate with criminal activity, as a TOPIC Illegal immigration to the United States and crime is notable because of the political impact it has had, in the 2016 Presidential primary, in some legislative and local races, and during the Trump Presidency. The political conversation around this topic is significant, notable, and can certainly support a page. Simply, it is too large to be squeezed into Illegal immigration to the United States, and so, like other subheads on that page, I have begun an article. I will continue to expand this page later this week, but I do not OWN it, and welcome the participation of other editors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. OK, I can see your argument. For example, we have page Race and intelligence simply because that has been a matter of extensive debate. Nevertheless, I would rather use page Immigration and crime in the United States, not the "Illegal...", to keep this content. That would simply be more logical and convenient.My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That is about crime (or the lack of) by immigrants, not about immigrant illegally. Two related but distinct topics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, it is not about Illegal immigration (a legitimate subject). It is about the non-existent relation between illegal immigration and crime. Illegal immigrants are still immigrants. Therefore, no, it is a part of the same subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with My very best wishes, and I would add using the word illegal in the title immediately creates an article that will struggle with NPOV. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Topic has received tons of attention in both the scholarly literature and media (cursory googling finds: [3], [4], [5]; tons of academic research [6]). I don't see much value in listing every crime committed by some illegal alien (there will be 100s of such stories in media), but I see the value in listing very prominent cases (e.g. 3-10 cases), and discussing research findings. I see some concerning POV indicating comments about from other editors who take a stance on the relationship as being relevant for whether the page should exist or not. Seems to loosely conflict with WP:NOTTRUTH. Deleet (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Illegal immigration and crime is distinct from legal immigration and crime. The article for immigration and crime co-mingles data on legal immigration with illegal immigration. best to have an article solely dealing with illegal immigration.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think we already have a legitimate page on this subject, and that is Immigration policy of Donald Trump. No need to promote myths ([7][8]) by creating POV forks. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Except, of course, that this issue is at least as old as Special Order 40 and the 1979 Murder of Jamiel Shaw II.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not think this is a valid reason to keep that page, just as your edit [9]? My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Crime by legal immigrants is one thing; crime by illegal immigrants is an altogether different thing. An encyclopaedia ought not to mingle both subjects, which are quite separate. Consider for example, that we have an article on Narcotics and an entirely separate article on "Prohibition of drugs." No-one argues that the latter one ought to be deleted because the narcotics article already says that heroin, for example, is "totally prohibited." Likewise, the article "migration and crime" is simply too generic to adequately cover the WP:SIGCOV already present on "Illegal immigration to the United States and crime", which plenty meets and exceeds WP:GNG. Consider, for example, that I have just added a citation of a National Public Radio source whose title is "Trump, Illegal Immigration And Crime" - observe NPR thinks "illegal immigration and crime" is a stand-alone topic from, say, Immigration and crime. Let's go by the sources.
  I'd also like to mention that the nomination is defective and tendentious. Its says this article was created "for the sole reason" to "list individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants" (!!!). Are we still assuming good faith around here? I'll hasten to add that in no way the current article is "a list". On the contrary, it presents the research, body of law, politics of the issue, and, as is common in these cases, links a limited number of blue-linked examples of the issue being discussed. On these grounds alone, the nomination ought to be withdrawn. XavierItzm (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To "list individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants"... But that is exactly what this user does [10]. This is wrong (scientifically and for other reasons), just as it would be wrong including lists of crimes committed by people depending on their race into page Race and crime... My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An inability to differentiate between "for the sole reason" (as in the nomination and as in this objection) and a subsection in an otherwise large article should be noted by third-party observers. XavierItzm (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly covered as a topic by multiple sources (as well as being a rather hot political football). This is not a POVFORK of Illegal immigration to the United States (which does not contain this depth on the crime issue) and neither of Immigration and crime (which is world wide and not specific to the US or to illegal immigrants). It seems a US president recently even declared a national emergency due to "The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics."[11] - so hard to argue this isn't a topic widely discussed as a stand alone topic. In as much as there are balance issues in the article - that's a content issue for the artice itself. Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "This is not a POVFORK of Illegal immigration to the United States (which does not contain this depth on the crime issue)" - That's absolute nonsense, and I dare anyone to compare the article considered for deletion with the relevant section in Illegal immigration to the United States and state that the latter is has less depth than the former.[12] It is an absurd claim. Illegal immigration to the United States contains ten times as extensive and thorough content on the subject than this POVFORK that E.M. Gregory created because he was upset that Illegal immigration to the United States was not fringe enough. If there was a serious intent to actually cover the subject matter in a standalone article, then the content in this section[13] would have just been copy-pasted over. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic passes WP:GNG by a mile (won't bother listing the references here). Topic is currently "buried" in large generic WP articles, but it is not a POVFORK to create a standalone WP article. U.S. law is different from the law in other countries, and thus the definition of "crime" and of an "illegal immigrant" changes. There are also thousands of WP articles with sub-articles by geography.

At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, this is what WP does for society, take notable topics and present the quality consensus fact-base. A well written/community edited article on this topic will help combat the considerable amount of fake-news on this specific topic. Yes, it will be a battle-ground article and the page will need protection (and a trip to ArbCom) like many others; that is what WP does.

While the article looks decently written, I do have an issue with the table at the end. I have no problem listing "crimes that became notable (e.g. have a WP article) BECAUSE of the issue of illegal immigration". However, the current table lists "notable crimes that happened to be done by illegal immigrants", which is not appropriate (and is POV).

I also belileve that the article should discuss crimes "done to" illegal immigrants, as well as "done by", which is in keeping with title.

Britishfinance (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If a standalone article on a subject that's extensively covered in Illegal immigration to the United States is needed, isn't the obvious solution then to simply copy-paste the section in that article[[14]] over to the article that's currently considered for deletion and build the rest of the article from there? As it stands, the article under consideration for deletion is a really poor version of the relevant section from Illegal immigration to the United States and seems intended to chiefly be about the grotesque crimes committed by individual illegal immigrants (the article creator has already edit-warred to keep that bizarre list in the new article - and has edit-warred on multiple other immigration-related articles to introduce similar content). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No problem with the "copy and paste". My concern is that this topic is definitely independently notable to have its own article. Agree that the current table is a problem and needs to be deleted or edited to be crimes that became notable BECAUSE of an illegal immigrant (either victim or perp.). If this article/topic gets through AfD, then it is going to need some ArbCom (or other), attention to clarify the ground rules, and consequences for those who ignore them. Britishfinance (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles in list now on page is entirely composed of "crimes that became notable BECAUSE of an illegal immigrant (either victim or perp.)".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I proposed precisely this solution to while I was in the process of creating this article [15], a proposal that I made in part because of User:Snooganssnoogans WP:OWN issues on page Illegal immigration to the United States. User:Snooganssnoogans replied [16] in an uncollegial manner. Note that Snooganssnoogans lacked the courtesy to notify page creator of this AfD. User:Snooganssnoogans WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN and uncollegial style is on display not only in the tone of this AfD nomination, but the aggressive, POV tone and style of his page edits during this discussion{[17], [18], [19].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That said, we can certainly condense subhead Illegal immigration to the United States#Relationship between illegal immigration and crime, moving relevant material to this page, as I proposed doing 4 days ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (as a dispassionate observer from across the pond). You guys should take a break from this for a few days. This article has not been written as a POV hit-piece, and both of your contributions are honestly motivated - and aside from the difference in opinion re having a standalone article - you both advocating good quality content.

If this gets through AfD, then the real crazies will arrive, which will need both your efforts to manage. We need to see an article bristling with highest quality research references/Tier 1 reporting. I would amend the title of the table (and content if necessary), as we can only really have one on crimes that became notable because the victim/perp was reported as illegal; anything else has to go. I would also split the research section (and maybe others) into "Crimes by Illegals" and "Crimes on Illegals", which would add to the WP:BALANCE on terms of respecting the title topic (which is what AfD is voting on). thanks, and look forward to reading in 6 months time when it has stabilised. Britishfinance (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Made some small structural edits to the article headings to reflect above (and simplify); hope it helped. Britishfinance (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "This article has not been written as a POV hit-piece" - it cannot be ignored that a lot of the content that the article creator is filling the article with is content that was reverted and rejected on several other immigration-related articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as a high-risk, low-return POV content fork. While I understand that it may be useful to Wikipedia to have lightning rods to entrap racist editors, I don't think this subject is of encyclopedic merit any more than Jelly Donuts and Ant Eaters is; ie: you can put together tangentially connected concepts all you like, they don't become relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. This article already exists but is inside a larger general article. AfD votes that do not invoke WP policy will be ignored. You need to produce a WP policy reason as to why this article should be deleted. Britishfinance (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The poliies I'm invoking above are WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SOAP. This is an arbitrary assemblage of information intended to act as an editor's soapbox. That's grounds for deletion. I'm also invoking the essay which should be a policy everywhere on Wikipedia and off - WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. As we are a consensus-based organization, it's only by people saying, "we should adhere to this principle," that a principle is established. And I strongly contend that we should adhere to the principle of denying a platform to bigots and will continue saying so everywhere relevant until it becomes policy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a subject with substantial WP:SECONDARY coverage from reliable, independent sources, and is almost certainly of inherent interest. No question this will be a contentious article, but there are certainly enough examples to choose from to show that's not disqualifying. Whether or not the article currently suffers from WP:POV issue is a separate question; that's a problem best addressed through discussion and participation by the WP community, not deletion. The article needs work, but on its face, the topic meets WP:GNG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - This AfD page is being canvassed. Comments by new users and IPs should be procedurally disregarded and striked. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - Bold-faced POV fork with a highly misleading title. This article was created in pretty much the same vein to the now-deleted article Jews and Communism: by listing individual incidents/Jewish people to misleadingly paint a causation to criminality by illegal immigration/Communism. The article creator's trollish comments and the events leading to the creation of this article, as pointed by proposer, as well as EMG's previous efforts to insert false or deliberately misleading POV editorializations, makes their motive and edits highly problematic. Even if the POV fork issue could be rectified, the existence of this article and its misleading title will continue to make it a hotbed for POV pushing and other undesirable time-wasting disruptive editing. Overall, really not worth the effort for something that could be perfectly included and explained in the main article in its totality. We will not be a vehicle or complicit to racist dogwhistling. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this content is unacceptable. It is a POV Content Fork and shouldn't be tolerated at all. Wikipedia is not at all a ""indiscriminate collection of daily recordings"". Sources can be unreliable and not that much trustable. Statistics of the article is supported by the sayings of Donald Trump, whom we very well know, a racist by birth. If possible salt this article if any one creates it. About time really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashotoshan Sashikaran (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
• delete crazily enough::: we don't supply content which doesn't belong to encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.89.253.22 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
• Delete and Salt We do not allow the premises of editors to create a stupidly enough single slanting POV which is a obvious content fork. After failing to establish a article inclusion, Em sets out to create an other article. This is not allowed here is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramvir chalravoty (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

• Comment Obviously, we should not allow any article that makes some sort of racial insinuation or alleges an unproven connection without sources. However, from what I'm reading on this page, the majority of content affirms that there is not a positive correlation between undocumented immigration and crime. This seems essentially to be a spin-off article from what was previously a very long section under Illegal Immigration to the United States. I think the real question is whether there is actually enough independent content on this topic to justify a separate article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably Delete - But, Trump has basically made the topic of Illegal Immigration and Crime notable, regardless of whether the linkage between the two is real or not. I think we could probably have an article, as long as we made it clear that the subject was the political propaganda of the 2016 campaign, and not an actual linkage between illegals and crime. Sorta like Uncle Sam. We all know he's not real, but he is notable. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, this is now mostly a Trumpism. But then it should simply be included to Political positions of Donald Trump. Or perhaps the title should be different, for example Immigration and crime in the United States (the "illegal" could be a part of such page). My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @My very best wishes: - Those seem like reasonable solutions too. NickCT (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absurd solution. A politician's position on a topic is separate from the topic itself, whether or not they supposedly "made" the topic notable. Whatever the final result is, this should not be it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: - It's not such much that it was made notable, more than it was made up. For instance, if a politician told us winged flying sharks were a serious menace, and b/c of his warning there was a notable coversation about flying sharks, it would be hard to seperate the topic of "flying sharks" from the topic of the politician. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:GNG, as it is a notable topic with many sources discussing it. It has been frequently discussed and is in the news -- and it has been discussed well before Trump becme president (Shooting of Kate Steinle, etc.). I reject the forking claim because this article is different in scope/depth from the "Illegal immigration to the United States" and "Immigration and crime" articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - seems GNG, prominent as separate topic in secondary press, political speech, and individual headline events do influence political directions and choices. It seems too much to insert into the overall Immigration articles, and that would seem too much prominence anyway. But work at keeping scope clear and being factual and NPOV showing all significant views in proportion to their prominence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is this article supposed to document a list of crimes by illegal immigrants? - because that's what it seems like the intention. If that's the intention I really cannot support this because it would be very clearly against WP:NPOV. We have similar articles on correlates of crime such as Race and crime in the United States, but none adds any type of list. Instead they summarise information.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is about a legal classification: illegal alien. It is NOT about race. Illegal immigrants of every shade of the rainbow have committed notable crimes in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And if you believe that American positions on immigration and who they consider to be a legal person vs who they consider an illegal non-human isn't tied to race, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Both articles are about a statistical correlate of crime (in particular where the correlate is a characteristic of the perpetrator). So if we don't include lists in race and crime, there is no argument to be made for inclusion in illegal immigration and crime.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Related discussion at CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_24#Category:Crimes_committed_by_illegal_immigrants --DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea of creating an article rather than a category was indeed suggested to me on that page.15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the unanimous deletion of Crimes_committed_by_illegal_immigrants category should be a good argument in favor of deleting also a list of Crimes_committed_by_illegal_immigrants or this page. Yes, this page is not the same as the list or the category. However, the page was apparently created to include the list, as should be clear from the RfC started by creator of the page [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT & WP:OTHERSTUFF are not valid arguments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP OP is no longer an accurate description of the article. It now lists statistics, not anecdotes. Since literally thousands of articles have been written about this topic in RS, and it's too complicated to adequately address as one small section of the illegal immigration article, it deserves its own article. Jwray (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES, please keep this article. signed PE65000.

This is the second edit made by this editor in almost nine years (the first being to the article under consideration for deletion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was about to vote for delete until I acknowledged that this has become a notable subject because of the  discussions of political and social issues in the US in recent years. Article nevertheless appears informative. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.