Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens


 * 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. Numerically, there is a clear consensus to delete. This means, in order to arrive at a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, the "keep" arguments would have to be significantly stronger in terms of our policies and guidelines. I can't say that this is the case here. The dispute turns on whether the categorization undertaken in this list is (a) notable and based on reliable sources, or (b) not notable and/or original research by synthesis. While legitimate arguments have been advanced here for both points of view (together with not-so-helpful political arguments), I can't, as the closer of this discussion, make an authoritative determination about who has the stronger argument. Ultimately, this is a matter of our individual and collective editorial judgment, and not a cut-and-dried application of policy. Given that the outcome is clear in terms of numbers, and ambiguous in terms of strength of argument, I have to find a consensus for deletion here.  Sandstein  07:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POVFORK. Content was removed from the already questionable new article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime, so this one was created a few hours later as a POVFORK. We should be an encyclopedic resource based on high quality sources/research, not stringing together news coverage of a bunch of individual incidents to give the impression of a trend contradicting that research. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: An ANI thread has been filed for article creator E.M.Gregory. !voters for this AfD are invited to join the discussion there. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete This is the third related article or category in a series that have been created in quick succession by this editor - despite the fact that with each fork the content has been getting less encyclopedic, not more. Furthermore, "illegal alien" is something of a bigoted slur and I object to Wikipedia using it as part of an article title where it is absent any context. Simonm223 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Move This should be moved to "List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal immigrants" because even if "Illegal Alien" is a law term, its offensive and shouldn't be in a neutral point of view encyclopedia. "Illegal Alien" isn't a term that makes sense to use in the context "List of crimes committed in the United States". For one, aliens are not even confirmed to be real, so using in a context which makes the term seem ordinary or eminent doesn't make the slightest sense. The term "alien" is being used to list articles where the offender is a illegal immigrant, that is both offensive and not for a neutral point of view encyclopedia. Swag Gangster   • 03:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt, and sanction the editor from creating more of these WP:POINTy monstrosities. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, this is not an encyclopedic entry. I also concur with other editors here that use of the term "illegal alien" is a slur that is not presented as a neutral term. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Illegal alien is a tight, legal term, see: Alien (law).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tight, legal term? Absolutely not. PolitiFact: "The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if the bigoted government of the United States insists on using a bigoted and dehumanizing phrase to refer to immigrants, we, at Wikipedia are under no requirement to duplicate their egregious bigotry. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me, then, how bigoted Bill Clinton is, along with Barack Obama. Not only is the term in longstanding federal law, but the Supreme Court (the liberal/centrist wings, specifically) have used "alien," "illegal alien," "illegal immigrant," and similar wording in Arizona v. United States and in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte -- in short, the term is appropriate, and it's the legal term. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you under some illusion that I don't consider Bill Clinton to be something of a bigot? Oh wait, this is the default American assumption that nobody exists to the left of the political center again. I'll reiterate, Wikipedia is under no obligation to repeat, in Wikipedia's voice, the bigotry of the US state or any other. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If "illegal alien" has a precise legal meaning, then we need to make sure that every entry in the list is described as such by reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - the list is merely a recap of a bunch of blue-linked articles that already exist. It is WP:COMMON on Wikipedia to have such lists.  It would be quite the NPOV violation to exclude out on lists of unpalatable subjects.  The nomination ought to be withdrawn on the simple grounds that "individual incidents to give the impression of a trend contradicting" is one of the clearest case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments ever seen on the 'pedia. XavierItzm (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the incredibly loaded language of the title, along with a heavy dose of recentism.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: The title almost satisfies CSD G10, and per nom, a clear POV fork. Since the creator is clearly trying to WP:POINT, I'd say salt the earth as well. GN-z11  ☎  ★ 07:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. If the content was removed from the broader article, this can't be a WP:POVFORK. For the definition of "illegal alien", see Alien (law), specifically "an illegal alien is any foreign national inside a country where he or she has no legal right to be". It is definitely not a "slur". This article is ineligible for speedy deletion and it shouldn't be salted (or protected whatsoever) because it has never been deleted. w umbolo   ^^^  09:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "illegal aliens" is a contentious label (WP:LABEL) that is widely considered by reliable sources to be pejorative. The term is one of affinity to racists and far-right publications. The term is not frequently used in reliable sources, certainly not more so than the synonyms "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants". Major news org style guides prohibit use of the term, such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post and the New York Times. The term does occur in law, but according to PolitiFact, the term only occurs in "scattered mentions" and does not refer to all illegal immigrants (in other words, the legal term "illegal alien" is different from conventional use). This is the summary of the PolitiFact piece on the term: "The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies." Furthermore, Operation Wetback was a thing, yet we wouldn't refer to illegal immigrants as "wetbacks" in Wiki voice. I do not see why Wikipedia should use a contentious value-laden term that reliable sources characterize as pejorative when there are readily available synonyms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * there are readily available synonyms That is contradicted by the Politifact article, which says that these terms are not synonymous. The title and scope of this article may be POV but that's not a reason to delete and there are no similar articles. Whether racist people use a word is not relevant;  unless there are obvious non-WP:LABEL alternatives (which there aren't here), there is no need to use words that mean something different for Orwellian reasons.  w umbolo   ^^^  12:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The legal term is not synonymous (because it does not refer to individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization), the way the term is used conventionally (for example, by you and E.M. Gregory who use it to refer to individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization while also misusing the legal term) is synonymous with "undocumented immigrant"/"unauthorized immigrant"/"illegal immigrant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding If the content was removed from the broader article, this can't be a WP:POVFORK - ?? From that page: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." Content of the other article was removed. Editors disagreed. Discussion is still ongoing, even. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, EM Gregory created another article on the same subject with the debated material. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This list was created after the article creator failed to get approval to fill several immigration-related articles with similar anecdotal content (e.g. "illegal immigrants XYZ committed grotesque murders"), had his category "Crimes committed by illegal immigrants" deleted, and created the dubious Illegal immigration to the United States and crime for the sole reason to list these individual crimes (though the list within the article was eventually removed). The editor has in the past recognized that the academic research on the topic of crime and illegal immigration disagrees with him, and the desire to highlight individual crimes by illegal immigrants seems intended to give the false impression that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone. Lastly, "illegal alien" is a pejorative and fails WP:LABEL. Wikipedia is not Breitbart, and the desire to introduce the equivalent of Breitbart's "Black crime" category should be frowned upon considerably. If this article is OKayed, it'll be propagated by every white supremacist, racist and immigration hardliner on forums and in social media to give the appearance that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone (even though the research on the subject completely debunks that notion). It is utterly beyond me how editors can claim there is no NPOV problem here. I eagerly anticipate "List of crimes by African-Americans" and "List of gang rapes by Muslims" now that some Wikipedia editors want to open this pandora's box of, and allow this website to corrupt public discourse and perception in this way. It is no coincidence that this list mirrors the Trump administration's Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement initiative, the sole purpose of which was to race-bait and scapegoat illegal immigrants by highlighting all the grotesque crimes committed by individual illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Of course there are notable propaganda subjects, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience etc. We can create pages about such subjects as long as they are clearly described on the page as propaganda/falsehoods. But unfortunately the lists, categories and infoboxes have no such NPOV protection. Simply by creating such list one makes a political statement, which is inherently POV. That's the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Illegal alien is a tightly defined, technical, legal term, see: Alien (law). Euphemisms such as undocumented alien are neither used in law nor are they tightly defined by American law.  Dislike for a legal term does not change the fact that it is the accurate and legal term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the term is not a "tightly defined, technical, legal term". It's a term of affinity to racists, immigration hardliners and far-right publications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Used in law, in courts of law, judicial opinions, and academic legal journals. I am not opposed to using the more common phrase "illegal immigrant," but since this is a list of a legally-defined, I did think that the legal term of art was appropriate - to keep the definition of eligible crimes precise.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, just because some bigoted US courts use a racist and dehumanizing phrase does not mean we need to also use it in Wikipedia voice. You are calling for Wikipedia to endorse a racist construct to-whit that immigrants are A) not human and B) can possibly be intrinsically illegal. Both of these constructs deserve scrutiny. Both are deeply, fundamentally and offensively racist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * US courts have also used the words "negro" and "Chinaman", yet I still don't think those are appropriate for article titles. Leviv&thinsp;ich 06:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.  We have a page on this subject that KEPT at a recent AfD. More to the point, we have a substantial number of bluelinked crimes committed by persons in a specific legally defined category, which makes creating a list WP:COMMON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer This user is the creator of this page, and this page is part of a WP:POINTY series of page creations from them recently. Their !vote should be considered in that context. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Further comment - If sanctions are considered as a result of this AfD, this user's history should be examined. NickCT (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" is the lamest possible argument you can use in an AfD. Come on: you know better than that. It violates AGF, it flies in the face of the arguments and discussion, and it's just plain silly. You too, XavierItzm. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's such a weak argument why has a "seasoned editor" whose edits you just described "typically neutral and well-sourced" used it literally hundreds of times to justify his reverts? . I refuse to believe an experienced and principled editor like yourself would apply wikipedia standards arbitrarily just to win arguments. 2606:2E00:8003:12:216:3EFF:FED6:D880 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - The creator of this page decided to create this without any consensus at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime This could potential be notable enough list for stand alone, but they clearly ignored the discussion. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 13:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pretty clear WP:SYNTH, WP:N, WP:POV issues here. NickCT (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and - Per User:Malik Shabazz - Salt and sanction. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree on sanctions too because of their disruptive behavior. At the very least, they deserve a warning from an admin. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 13:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP used to be such a nice place before those people moved in. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. While many of us may WP:IDONTLIKE that this is a notable topic - crimes by illegal aliens are clearly discussed by the news media - and heck the President of the US - as a set. This is not a WP:POVFORK, as this content does not appear in the parent article (and perhaps it shouldn't). The article amply meets WP:LISTPEOPLE / WP:LISTCRITERIA. There may be scope for a merge to the parent article - but not on notability grounds (based on editorial discretion on whether the list should be separate from the article). WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing too - even for topics we don't like. "Illegal alien" is a legal term - there may be scope to change the title to "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant" - which all mean basically the same thing - but that's for a move discussion, not deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - After seeing a comment along the lines of "the list just collects bluelinks," I looked at something that seems worth noting here. In addition to creating this list and illegal immigration to the United States and crime, EM Gregory is also the primary contributor to fully half of the articles on this list (creator of most of those), and has made multiple edits to all of them. Now, I know EMG well enough to know that he often edits articles about crimes, so I'm trying not to leap to a conclusion, but it's hard not to see this list as unifying a lot of effort creating the appearance on Wikipedia of a link between illegal immigration and crime. I'd love to be shown to be wrong here -- it's just unusual to see a controversial new article and its constituent parts be the product of a single editor. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Honestly the more time goes by and the more this gets dug into, the more it seems like sanctions might be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note 1.) creating well sourced articles on notable events is a positive contribution. 2.) I create articles on a wide range of topics.  3.) It is not true that I created "fully half" of the articles on the list, although it would not be improper to have done so. And also Note that one of the linked pages Ángel Maturino Reséndiz includes and embedded list of the murders he committed.  Such lists are COMMON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed several entries for suspects who have not yet been convicted, as these are likely BLP violations. The whole list needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is in fact COMMON practice to name perps in crime articles once the crime becomes notable enough to have an article but before the conclusion of the trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's uncommon to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME when you can make political hay by ignoring it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, notwithstanding 's efforts to bring it weakly into compliance, this page, as it stood was in pretty serious violation of WP:LIBEL. And I don't have any faith that it won't fall into that trap again immediately if scrutiny slacks in even the least degree. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It beggars belief that anyone with even the weakest grasp of BLP could think it's ok to treat "list of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens" as though it were "list of acts in the United States for which someone who might have been in the country illegally has been accused, regardless of conviction" ... and even restoring such material after it was challenged on BLP grounds... &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We're actually extremely careful about how we describe suspects in situations like this. Even when there is no question that the suspect pulled the trigger, there are cases such as Shooting of Kate Steinle (one of the examples which I removed from the list) where they are later acquitted of the murder charges for various reasons. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please let me clarify, I'm thankful for your efforts to remove overtly libelous material from this page. I don't think it could get better than weakly compliant, another reason for both deletion and sanctioning the article creator for this lapse of judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please reread that policy. Editors who create and edit articles in Category:2010s murders in the United States do indeed "consider" whether a crime is notable enough to have a page, but when a crime and the name of the suspect has been splashed across the front page, it is COMMON to include the name and, indeed, no court in the United States would listen to an assertion the suspect in the recent Marshall County High School shooting, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Thousand Oaks shooting, or Juan David Ortiz and Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman are protected by libel laws from having their names published.  Nor will their names be protected form libel laws in the event that ehthey are acquitted, articles in reputable publications will state that they were "acquitted due to ...". E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is your common practice that is a problem, as WP:BLPCRIME says For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is a pattern in the creations of such articles as 2002 Queens rape, Murder of the Zhuo family, Murder of Eliud Montoya, Tulare County spree shooting, Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman and this list. That pattern strikes me as eerily similar to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. Particularly contributions to Wikipedia concerning individual [illegal immigrants], lists of [illegal immigrants], ... can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of [illegal immigrant] individuals and [illegal immigrants as a group]. There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individual [illegal immigrants] and [illegal immigrants as a group] in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. I suppose that is a matter for an arbitration case or an RFC/U though. But here, this article, should be deleted as a BLP nightmare. You would need sources for both the person who commited the crime to have been an illegal immigrant and sources for a criminal conviction (and being in the country illegally is not a criminal offense, it is a civil one, so there would need to be a conviction for a crime other than unlawful presence). Beyond that, the intersection between illegal immigrant and crime may be a popular one right this second, but I dont see how it merits a list. We dont have a list of crimes committed by native born Americans. We dont have a list of crimes committed by legal resident aliens in the country. We dont have a list of crimes committed by naturalized citizens either. This is just another in a string of articles created to perpetuate the lie that illegal immigrants are causing mayhem in the streets. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * are you stating that you consider violating WP:LIBEL to be common practice? Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying that American libel law does not regard reproducing or citing material about suspected perpetrators like statements made by police, and district attorneys and published in major newspapers as libel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not my question. Do you see violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:LIBEL to be common practice? Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete for two reasons. First, this has been already deleted as a category (see here). How one can make a list about something that should not be combined as a single category? Second, one could make similar lists about crimes committed by homeless people, supporters of Republican party, ethnic minorities in the United States, and so on. Should they be kept? Importantly, there is actually a negative correlation between the numbers of crimes and someone being an illegal alien. Therefore, I think this list can qualify even as an attack page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a great many lists of crimes organized by the legally defined status of the perpetrator: List of Albuquerque police shootings, List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses, List of United States state officials convicted of federal corruption offenses,  List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses, List of United States unincorporated territory officials convicted of federal corruption offenses,  List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States,  List of Irish Republican Army ambushes, List of war crimes.   In addition, there are many embedded crime lists, such as ISIL beheading incidents, and the "victims" subhead in Ángel Maturino Reséndiz.  The fact is that Illegal immigration to the United States and crime is a notable topic, and the arguments to delete this List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens amount to WP:IDONTLIKE, but this is a list of well-sourced, bluelinked articles, and WP:NOTCENSORED. As that POLICY states: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia".E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All lists you included above are fine, unlike this list . I would say only the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States might be challenged as POV, but it is arguably OK because shooting by police officers during arrests does happen very often and therefore relevant. This list, however, is inherently POV, just as would be a List of killings by Jews in the United States, for example. Hence delete. My very best wishes (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that U.S. unincorporated territory officials convicted of federal corruption offenses "happen very often"? And what about the "List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses" and "List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses" articles? There are thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of federal and local officials (particularly local officials). These articles (particularly the latter) comprise only a tiny sliver of the total number of federal and local officials. By your logic, we should delete them too, as they're POV against federal and local government (and yes, there are people who oppose the existence/powers of either one or the other).
 * As I've stated elsewhere in this discussion, this article (like all the other articles mentioned by E.M.Gregory) do not imply that the various crimes are widespread or common. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So, based on your response and response by E.M.Gregory, you both think that a red-linked list as above would be just fine? Sorry to disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The constant dismissal of people’s opinions of this amateur personal essay (that’s what this is) as “I don’t like it” is stupidity. I for one couldn’t care less about the article’s topic, to be honest. But what is really the point of an article pinpointing 10 random crimes as if it in itself correlates to a larger trend. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Trillfendi (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This article's existence does not imply there's "a larger trend" -- User:E.M.Gregory pointed out several article lists, but none of them imply any "wider trend." For example, the "List of United States local officials convicted of federal corruption offenses" and "List of United States unincorporated territory officials convicted of federal corruption offenses" articles don't imply that extremely rampant corruption exists among local and unincorporated territory officials, just as this article doesn't imply that illegal aliens are all mass murderers and criminals. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be okay with List of crimes committed in the United States by Mexicans? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Editors come to the page knowing that they WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but can see that the previous editors who share their POV brought invalid arguments. So they come up with an invalid argument that has not been mentioned before. The fact is that some topics that WP:IDONTLIKE are valid topics.  But the wild casting about for a reason to delete an article that many editors simply DONOTLIKE is itself an indication of POV motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article meets WP:GNG and WP:STANDALONE. It meets WP:NPOV just like similar list articles in existence and is supported by WP:RSs. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Easily passes notability. QED. Markvs88 (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, QED is an acronym someone usually uses after they've demonstrated something or said something smart. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it means "thus it has been demonstrated", which it has been. By way of comparison, snide comments are not. QED. Please keep your opinions on other people's opinions to yourself, or to user talk pages, they are only noise here. Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And there I was thinking it meant; I have no idea what I'm talking about, and try to disguise it with latin. NickCT (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with others that subject is notable and it meets WP:GNG. All listed links are blue link articles as well. Don't see any indication of bias here. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand this is a controversial subject and I want to tread lightly. I consulted the appropriate policy, WP:SAL, and I don't see anything to suggest that the list be deleted. As long as each entry is properly cited to address BLP concerns, I don't see a policy reason for this to go. I don't think the topic is inherently so POV that it must be deleted on those grounds. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cosmic Sans, do you believe it would be fine to have the lists "List of crimes committed by African-Americans", "List of white serial killers", "List of gang rapes by Muslims", and "List of crimes by outspoken Donald Trump supporters"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a great question. I think it demonstrates just how much of a judgment call can come into play when we're talking about stand-alone lists, which are by definition aggregates of sources and requires at least a little editor influence into what we collate into stand-alone lists. The issue of crime as it pertains to those who have entered the US illegally is a topic that is often discussed in reliable sources and is therefore a topic of encyclopedic interest. The examples you gave are much different. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The context in which it is discussed by RS is to debunk the falsehood that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone. The creation of this list serves to magnify and promote that falsehood without identifying it as a falsehood. Also, crimes by African-Americans and gang rapes by Muslims are two topics that are covered extensively by RS. And it is in my mind bizarre to argue that it would have been OK to create "List of crimes by African-Americans" in the 1960s just because prominent racists at the time promoted the myth that blacks are crime-prone and RS covered their racist propaganda (even when describing it as such). I mean, would we seriously OK "List of child sex abuse committed by LGBT individuals" if a hateful homophobe somehow managed to make this into a topic that RS had to repeatedly debunk (and thus got RS coverage)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As nasty as it sounds, if Wikipedia was around in the 1960s and if it had the same policies as today, you'd probably a lot more than just that list. The standard of Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability in reliable sources. The reliable sources of the day were very racist, and that would have shown through here. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My point was lost. If every RS had covered that as a falsehood, why then would Wikipedia have covered the lie as if it were correct? That is where the NPOV violation lies. The article creator has already copped to holding a FRINGE POV on the subject and been unable to insert this race-baiting propaganda into various immigration-related articles, but now looks certain to finally get to create a propaganda piece where this lie that illegal immigrants are crime-prone will reach the masses and get the Wikipedia stamp of legitimacy. If this gets OKayed, it will be the most insidious and heinous Wikipedia page, and do nothing but misinform and stir hatred. And editors are OKaying it because it happens to have been covered by RS (which universally debunk the falsehood). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think this article is stating or implying that illegal immigrants are crime-prone. It lists nine incidents over the past 27 years. If the article was a screed about how terrible illegal immigrants are, I'd agree with you, but it seems to be a stand-alone list referencing existing Wikipedia articles. Everything on this list has a corresponding Wikipedia article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That's not true, especially for some types of crimes or some groups of immigrants. Plenty of RS support it (or don't say that it is false)         .  w umbolo   ^^^  17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You should strike your comment: (1) The Pew source is about the crime of illegally crossing borders. Of course, this is a crime that illegal immigrants are overrepresented for. (2) This is a Fox News analysis of data (data conveniently not made available to anyone else) by Malia Zimmermann (who has no research expertise on this or any matter) who was also behind the Seth Rich hoax story. (3) The third source is a non-peer-reviewed paper by John Lott, who is renowned for his shoddy research that conventionally always supports rightwing talking points (his papers are literally used in methodology textbooks as examples of rubbish research designs and methods). (4) The fourth source is not about undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, it‘s for federal crimes, which are an infinitesimal share of crimes in the US. (5) Not a RS. (6) Can‘t see what this has to do with the topic. (7) The Economist piece is gated, but it would astound me if a quality RS like the Economist would promote the falsehood that undocumented immigrants are crime-prone. (8) There is nothing in this study about illegal immigrants. A separate study by the same authors explicitly concludes that deporting illegal immigrants would likely not reduce crime. (9) Not a RS, it‘s an op-ed by a nobody. (10) CIS is renowned for its shoddy reports, which all conveniently find, in conflict with nearly all other studies, that immigrants and immigration are harmful on every level and dimension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep with no prejudice against a second nomination if a non-trivial number of the blue-links are deleted. This meets my WP:SAL criteria - it contains blue links, is a grouping often used in "the media" to describe many of the events, and those events aren't on other WP:SAL pages.  Whether those pages are notable events or not is a different question.  All murders are tragic, but not all are notable.  If a contributor feels that all murders committed by illegal immigrants are notable because they are committed by illegal immigrants, they will likely be rebuked for a WP:POV violation.  The various problems with news coverage on Wikipedia are prominent here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Articles for deletion/Killing of Nabra Hassanen for deletion based on this theory. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - With respect, "illegal immigrant" in America is often an ethnic distinction. I could make any number of "List of crimes committed in the United States by Ethnicity X". Many of those lists would meet the criteria you've laid out. Do you feel they too would be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't the bar exam. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Granted. But it is an examination of what should and shouldn't meet our rules for inclusion. NickCT (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:SYNTH & WP:POV, along with WP:BLP concerns. The edit history shows edit warring by the article creator to introduce material on individuals who have not been convicted. The page appears to be an example of using Wikipedia for political advocacy. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also see Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 24, created by the same contributor. The category was deleted and so should this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This user creating a list so soon after having the same category deleted seems like bad faith. NickCT (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article uses solid sources and the criteria for inclusion are unambiguous. I don't really understand how it could become a POVFORK when the criteria for inclusion are well-defined and based on facts that have been reported clearly in reliable news articles. The topic itself is undoubtedly notable, and I think that a list to accompany the article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime is worthwhile.Worldlywise (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable topic. Passes WP:GNG. Sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post are fine. Is it the widely used term "illegal alien" that some people dislike? Perhaps a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The legal system in the United States has used the term "illegal alien", even if some people may be sensitive about the term. At WP:NOTCENSORED, it states: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. I'm sure that out of the 5 million or so articles on Wikipedia, there would be some I dislike, but an encyclopedia provides content and information to people and this article passes notability guidelines. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a RS doing its own research - The Boston Globe (which is one of the real US newspapers - e.g. like LA Times)- Criminal immigrants reoffend at higher rates than ICE has suggested, Boston Globe, 4 June 2016 - is prior to Trump being elected. "The names of these criminals have never before been made public and are coming to light now only because the Globe sued the federal government for the list of criminals immigration authorities returned to neighborhoods across the country. A judge ordered the names released in 2013, and the Globe then undertook the work that the federal government didn’t, scouring court records to find out how many released criminals reoffended.". Give me a policy based excuse (in the face of sources discussing this) - and I will flip. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete because notability is based on the group  and not the individual list items, per our notability guideline for stand-alone lists, WP:LISTN: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." In this case, while the individual crimes may be notable, the group "crimes committed by illegals" is not notable (reliable sources do not publish a list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants), and therefore, this should not be a stand-alone list. For us to compile such a list when no RSes compile such a list would be original research. (Unlike a list of terrorist attacks, which many RSes have published.) When the category was deleted, editors !voted delete based on SYNTH and POV (which others have covered above). Same at the ongoing RfC for the embedded list. Same here. I hope !keeps will reconsider that all the sources are for individual list items (and look how short it is btw), and there are no RSes for the list as a group. Delete, it's POV SYNTH that fails to meet our LISTN notability guideline. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - that is a somewhat untenable policy position - as this seems to be covered by sources - Trump asked for a list of crimes committed by immigrants. So where is it?, Trumps reads out list of criminal offences committed by illegal immigrants in the US, Trump administration publishes first 'weekly list of crimes' committed by immigrants, Independent, President Donald Trump to publish weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants, Indpendent. I am willing to re-consider my !vote above, but the sole policy grounds I see is at the moment WP:IAR (based on such a list being inappropriate - and reading the arguments above, I do think that List of crimes committed by class of people X can be offensive and with a bad taste - which is more a comment on the underlying society that has made this a notable topic). I don't see what WP:NOT this fails (and the inappropriate argument - seems to run foul of WP:NOTCENSORED). In short - if sources do cover this type of list - on what policy grounds to you exclude ? Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , not IAR this time :-) The policy is WP:NPOV and WP:OR and the guideline is WP:LISTN. Your sources are good examples: It's Trump who is trying to say that a "list of crimes by illegal immigrants" is a thing. You can see how the media talks about "the list", but they themselves do not actually publish a list of crimes (so-and-so killed so-and-so on such-and-such a date, like our list has). Donald Trump himself is a primary not secondary source (he's just repeating the list, not analyzing it or anything). But reliable secondary sources like scholarly journals or reputable media have never (AFAIK) published a list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. They talk about crime and immigration, including illegal immigration, in the sociological sense (and we have an article on that, Illegal immigration to the United States and crime), they talk about statistics, and policies, but they don't publish a list of actual crimes like who killed who when, and call it a "list of crimes by illegal immigrants" (nor by race, or religion, or gender, etc.). Unlike a list of terrorist attacks, or a list of political assassinations, a list of Oscar winners, etc., those are all published. But a list of crimes by illegal immigrants isn't a list of items that have been grouped together like this before by RSes, so our grouping it woudl be OR. As was pointed out in the category deletion, this is an "unrelated intersection" or whatever you call it. A) A crime was committed. B) The perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. But RSes don't put A and B together into a list; it's OR for us to do it. Just like we don't have a List of crimes by eye color, or List of crimes committed by people wearing sneakers, and for us to create one would be improper OR SYNTH. As for WP:NOTs, it hits a few: WP:NOTFORUM #1 (original research by combining list items that haven't been combined by other RSes in this way); WP:NOTADVOCACY #1 (propaganda), #2 (opinion, e.g. about illegal immigration), #3 (scandal mongering, about illegal immigration); WP:NOTDIR #1 (lists of loosely associated topics), #6 (non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations), WP:NOTNEWS #3 (who's who Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.). The topic, in the article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime, and what Trump says about it in the articles about him and his policy positions, are all notable/significant; but a stand-alone list of individual crimes collected where the only thing in common is the immigration status of the perpetrator, is OR and NOT... something we should !keep :-) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Other analogous examples: we have articles about domestic violence but we don't have a List of men who beat their wives. We have articles about child abuse but not a List of pedophiles. We do however have a List of serial killers, because that is a notable list (a list like that has been published by reliable secondary sources), where as the other two are not notable, so even though we could compile such a list, it would be OR. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - but in this case - the US federal government (per links in my query above) is compiling a weekly list of such crimes, releasing it, and it seems this is reported on by the media and elsewhere. If you give me a good policy based reason to support deletion (even though there is coverage - lets assume there are published lists even if you disagree) - then you'll flip my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't buy Trump's BS! The government is not creating such a list, Trump just says they are. Here is the most-recent report I can find (from June 2018). You'll see it has like 14 names of illegal immigrants in federal custody (that's a subset of crimes).
 * Here's the kicker, footnote 7:
 * They aren't compiling the report from actual data, they're just listing some examples from the media! To me this shows why the US government is not a reliable source. They explicitly say they cannot assure the accuracy of the information! Also, remember that the US has 2 million prisoners (!), and here we have a list of 14 names–totally out of proportion, totally UNDUE. This is nothing more than anti-immigrant propaganda in my view. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - the media - generally is a RS - a press-roundup based on media is still a RS - and if the roundup paper is re-reported by media RS it is blessed yet again as a RS. What I'm missing here - is policy grounds for deletion. My view is that this is discussed as a set in RSes (definitely since it became part of the Trump agenda - possibly before as well). I don't like that it is discussed - and the media is prompted to cover this by the adminstration's spin - but there are RSes reporting on various lists with this intersection (crime + illegal immigrant). So given sources - what's our policy based rationale for deletion? If you give me a good policy based excuse here - I will bite - because I'd prefer this sort of list to be deleted.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OR and NLIST. NLIST says some reliable source somewhere has to publish a list, as a list, before we can publish the list. Look at the WP:V or even the pillars for policy: Wikipedia should not be the first source to ever publish a list of illegal immigrant crimes–but this is exactly what we're doing. Nobody else in the world has ever published this list–not the US government, not any media, there are no books (AFAIK). So for us to do so is OR, isn't it? Or do you disagree? "Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows" is what I'm arguing. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the concept of a list, or an article about the government's list, would certainly be fair game. But the list itself – combining crimes together based on the immigration status of the offender – this is what's novel and basically not notable, because no other RSes have combined crimes together based on immigration status and published it before. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They aren't compiling the report from actual data, they're just listing some examples from the media! To me this shows why the US government is not a reliable source. They explicitly say they cannot assure the accuracy of the information! Also, remember that the US has 2 million prisoners (!), and here we have a list of 14 names–totally out of proportion, totally UNDUE. This is nothing more than anti-immigrant propaganda in my view. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - the media - generally is a RS - a press-roundup based on media is still a RS - and if the roundup paper is re-reported by media RS it is blessed yet again as a RS. What I'm missing here - is policy grounds for deletion. My view is that this is discussed as a set in RSes (definitely since it became part of the Trump agenda - possibly before as well). I don't like that it is discussed - and the media is prompted to cover this by the adminstration's spin - but there are RSes reporting on various lists with this intersection (crime + illegal immigrant). So given sources - what's our policy based rationale for deletion? If you give me a good policy based excuse here - I will bite - because I'd prefer this sort of list to be deleted.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OR and NLIST. NLIST says some reliable source somewhere has to publish a list, as a list, before we can publish the list. Look at the WP:V or even the pillars for policy: Wikipedia should not be the first source to ever publish a list of illegal immigrant crimes–but this is exactly what we're doing. Nobody else in the world has ever published this list–not the US government, not any media, there are no books (AFAIK). So for us to do so is OR, isn't it? Or do you disagree? "Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows" is what I'm arguing. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the concept of a list, or an article about the government's list, would certainly be fair game. But the list itself – combining crimes together based on the immigration status of the offender – this is what's novel and basically not notable, because no other RSes have combined crimes together based on immigration status and published it before. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The cited RS is not about illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Er... yes, it is. It is a story that is about "illegal immigrants" who committed crimes and were incarcerated and scheduled for deportation, but who, when released, were not deported and went on to commit other crimes, "the review reveals the damage inflicted on victims by criminals who were ordered to be deported when their sentences were complete, and were not."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the story at no point identifies these individuals as illegal immigrants (or any synonym). The story certainly does not identify them as illegal immigrants before they received the deportation order. Furthermore, receiving a deportation order does not make someone an illegal immigrant AFAIK. Deportation orders can be revoked and individuals with deportation orders can obtain legal status (e.g. DACA recipients). I mean, countless American citizens have received deportation orders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Article is linked. Anyone who is interested can click, read and see that the Boston Globe compiled and analyzed a list of illegal immigrants who were convicted but not deported after their release fromAmerican jails.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's flat out not true. These are not illegal immigrants. And it's not a list. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also not a list of names. They talk about a list, but they don't publish the list. OR is the policy that would prohibit us from publishing such a list when no RSes have published such a list. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It links to the list : "The Globe has also published, in conjunction with this story, a searchable database of the thousands of names that were disclosed to the news organization, so that crime victims, law enforcement officials, and managers of sex offender registries — who are often unaware of these releases — can find out if the criminals may still be in the United States."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. First, it's not a list, it's a link to a searchable crime database. There are lots of searchable crime databases, and they are all primary sources. None are a list of illegal immigrant criminals, and neither is the Globe's. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 23:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Quarterly Alien Incarceration Report Highlighting the Negative Effects of Illegal Immigration and the Need for Border Security and, although it is an advocacy group Examples of Serious Crimes By Illegal Aliens (listed by year).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Federation for American Immigration Reform is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre I would, in the spirit of WP:NONAZIS, ask that you strike-through reference to them as a source for discussion here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to the perfectly valid lists already cited, please note Politifact (2016) helpfully enumerated three cases with all relevant details, including: illegal alien status of the perpetrator, name of the victim, date of the victim's death, and name of the perpetrator. Subsequently, The New York Times (2018) also enumerated a couple of the cases, also providing illegal alien status of the perpetrator, name of the victim, date of the victim's death, and name of the perpetrator.  Townhall (2017) published a more extensive list.  NLIST objections are therefore inapplicable to this article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ummm... do you guys read these sources before you post them here? The DOJ/DHS report EM linked to is discussed above, I quoted from footnote 7, which explains it isn't a DOJ/DHS list at all, but a compilation of news reports, for which the DOJ/DHS cannot guarantee accuracy. I.e., not a reliable source per the source itself. Footnote 7.
 * The Politifact and Townhall "lists" are actually not lists that they put together, but rather those outlets reporting on the list of people that Trump named in a speech, and Trump got that from said DOJ/DHS report. So, a primary source parroting what the government is saying, and the government conceded what its saying cannot be guaranteed to be accurate.
 * The New York Times link is not a list at all. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A WP:RS list is a list is a list, even if you don't like it. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , under what definition of "list" are these 30+ paragraphs a "list"? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 23:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The NYT article lists a small subset of the cases that Politifact and Townhall list. For each case, the NYT lists: illegal alien status of the perpetrator, name of the victim, date of the victim's death, and name of the perpetrator.  BTW, this here comment lists three sources.  Aren't lists wonderful? Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL oh so by "list" you mean any sequence. A sentence is a list of words. Therefore, all our articles should be evaluated under LISTN. I think you're stretching the definition a bit there, and wasting my time here. FYI, I consider this a list:
 * Item 1
 * Item 2
 * Item 3 Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Item 2
 * Item 3 Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, another afd to add to "List of really really long afds that relate to short articles" as this is nudging 6 thousand words while the article is around 800 :)). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, i would be more comfortable with this list if it included references that discussed/covered these crimes as a group (of course, not necessarily all of them), in line with WP:LISTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Coolabahapple, I added a brief introductory section discussing these crimes as a group.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The text that you added is not good enough. The text should be as explicit as it can be: "There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives." No nonsense about correlations and "appears to". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thanx for the additions (i am almost able to sit down and enjoy a nice cup of earl grey:)), one thing i don't understand is that the "deleters" have not suggested, as an alternative, merging this information to a section of Illegal immigration to the United States and crime rather than an all out delete, as, to me, it appears to be the sort of thing that wikireaders who look into this subject would be interested in. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Coolabahapple Indeed, this is the sort of list that users expect us to have. Like our lists Terrorism in Argentina, Terrorism in Australia, it shows how few such crimes there have been.  That may surprise some Trump fans, who, depending on where they get their news, may expect a list the length of List of lynching victims in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the current RfC concerning inclusion in the main article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no much difference between a list embedded to a page (a subject of the RfC here) and a standalone list (this discussion). It's the same list. Whatever a decision might be, I think it should be the same for this list and the embedded list. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What the nativists of Wikipedia fail to understand is that there's nothing special, and therefore nothing notable about the national origin or citizenship status of people who commit a crime. Time and again, research has demonstrated that immigration status either has no correlation to criminality or weakly correlates to reduced criminality. And that makes the framing of an article that attempts to separate this out as a distinct and notable category of crime inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. Reliable sources say this isn't a thing that needs scrutiny. There's nothing there. It's a fantasy in the head of deranged racists. So creating a list of these statistically inconsequential crimes is propagating a racist fantasy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - nableezy, My very best wishes and K.e.coffman nail it, and none of the keep arguments hold water, as should be easy enough to see for anyone. This page is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Synthesis and POV/neutrality issues. Illegal immigration to the United States and crime can cover the concept, but an attempted list of incidents, as a separate article on as part of that one, is inappropriate and the list was created as a POV content fork. Notable incidents where the immigration status is relevant can be discussed there but this stand-alone list is merely synthesis of unrelated crimes. Reywas92Talk 08:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the absence of List of crimes committed in the United States (by legal aliens? by citizens of the US? not to mention by citizens of the Netherlands, Green Card holders, men, truck drivers, English professors, etc), this is a clear POV construction--it supposes that there is something important about certain crimes having been committed by furriners. The fun fact of course is that if we had List of crimes committed in the United States by non-illegal non-aliens, that list would be a million times longer--and that alone points at the undue-ness of this. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is a synthesised list for a cross category (List of X belonging to Y). At the moment, there is no definite guideline on notability of such lists. The closest I found was There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, available in WP:NOTESAL. Interestingly, Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants was deleted, which makes me lean towards deletion. Unless multiple reliable sources have documented such a list and it has been shown to be notable, I think it is pure WP:SYNTH to create one. For example, List of crimes in USA by NRA members could plausibly exist, but there is no need to have one unless it has actually been published in reliable sources. This list violates WP:OR and it is particularly POV, given that a list documenting crimes by people other than illegal immigrants, does not exist. I am also concerned about BLP/NPOV issues and I think Wikipedia should avoid keeping anything which denigrates an individual without legal proof (a few articles for a short while in some sensationalist media do not count).--DreamLinker (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * False assertion about the sourcing; WP:OTHERSTUFF (imagined pages that don't exist,) WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am correct about the sourcing and the rest of your comment is a straw man. You are linking to essays which do not override actual policies (and neither are they relevant to my argument anyway). As quoted by someone above, "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is the lamest possible argument you can use in an AfD. Come on: you know better than that. It violates AGF, it flies in the face of the arguments and discussion, and it's just plain silly".--DreamLinker (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can’t think of any reason for this article other than pushing a POV denigrating a body of people that many have been led to believe are primarily of a particular race. WP:POVFORK O3000 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:POVFORK from original article; and clear WP:SYNTH issues, since this combines two categories with a clear intent to push a particular conclusion. Wikipedia lists aren't the place to hash out arguments about immigration. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep' Meets WP:LISTN. I don't see any convincing argument to justify deletion other than the usual run-of-the-mill WP:ATA arguments which counts for nothing. Kerberous (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  vERY wEAK Keep Delete' Based (yes I know) on other stuff, if we can have pages like Immigration and crime in Germany why not the same for the US (A rename yes).Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, beyond WP:OSE, the article you refer to is not a list. We have such an article as well. See my opinion below. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the below I change to delete, already covered.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article Illegal immigration to the United States and crime already covers the topic. This list seems to push an incorrect agenda that is fairly discussed in the article. With incorrect I mean at the more legitimate statistics or generalization level. Wikipedia should not shy away from a little controversy. If the list was only politically incorrect – and not also factually misleading – I'd keep it per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and WP:NOTCENSORED as *errenousely* brought as a reason for keep above and below. gidonb (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: For some editors (not all) I'm concerned that their political views and personal dislikes might be influencing their views on this and for some editors (not all) it does seem to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. One particular article I personally dislike is Sexuality of Jesus, where it is speculated that Jesus was gay merely because he was celibate. I dislike that speculation, but I would certainly never suggest that the article is deleted based on a personal dislike. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and guidelines state: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍. This article List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens is a notable subject and it meets WP:GNG. Any personal dislikes that some editors may have about the topic itself is irrelevant in terms of deletion unless the article fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for articles. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the 14th Century, a belief was spread that Jews were responsible for the Black Death, leading to widespread annihilation of Jewish communities. Suppose that we had a leader now that falsely claimed that Jews were responsible for the recent measles outbreaks in the US. Would we create an article titled Jews with measles? The only notability I see is that a current leader is falsely blaming the US crime problems on illegal immigrants. Is there any RS creating a list of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens? Yes, we should document what the leader has said. But, I don't understand the notability of creating a list for a drummed up, political purpose.‎ O3000 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt, and sanction as this is the latest one in a series of inexcusable POV-pushing attempts by User:E.M.Gregory. EMG tried to insert the same material to Illegal immigration to the United States, got rejected, opened up a WP:POVFORK Illegal immigration to the United States and crime, got their POV list removed, opened up a RfC for the same material yet again, saw consensus went against them and here we are, a second POV fork in 14 days. Since EMG has demonstrated that they're incapable of listening other editors, I propose we go to ANI for this kind of disruption.<span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My experience is different. While I do find myself on opposite sides of an argument with EMG, as here, I learned to appreciate him as a passionate Wikipedian, who can listen to other editors. gidonb (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My limited encounter with them has left me the impression that they're willing to boldly violate NPOV principles and ignore any other editors' input afterwards. Their records hasn't been convincing for me to overturn it. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for the article listing crimes committed in the United States by people with a legal right to live there, which constitute the great majority of crimes committed in that country. Why can't I find it? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That (as well as the simpler and very overlapping List of crimes in the United States) would probably be too large to be a iseful list (there is a deletion criteria for that for lists - e.g, think List of US persons - even if limited to only wikinotable is simply too big).Icewhiz (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you, and the creator of this article, be as happy with it if it contained content from the bottom of this page and this page? Not that I'm advocating that, because this should be deleted as obvious bigotry, but if it was it to be kept then such content would appear to be appropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I assume you mean this to try to be funny, but it really isn't. Natureium (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would you assume that? It was a perfectly serious question and observation. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading the article and this discussion, my opinion is to delete as a POVfork and SYNTH-y collection of crimes, also noting the point made by My Very Best Wishes that this collection (or a substantially similar one) was already deleted when previously tried as a category. -sche (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note - I have filed an ANI thread for article creator E.M.Gregory. !voters for this AfD are invited to join the discussion there. Pinging sanction !voters.    . Inappropriate pinging striked. My apologies. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 22:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete "Illegal aliens" (hate that term) have committed crimes? So have naturalized citizens. This is not a notable intersection of topics, and as these aren't notable people, this isn't a notable topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I was leaning towards keep at the beginning but upon further examination I don't see anything that makes illegal aliens remarkable. Under the assumption there are little to no illegal aliens listed who are notable irrespective of their crimes, then this wouldn't be comparable to other somewhat similar crime list articles of US officials or professional sports people who are almost certainly notable irrespective of their crimes. It makes no sense to have articles listing illegal immigrants who committed crimes, or Muslims who did X, or green-shirt-wearers who committed Y, considering the particular characteristics being highlighted in their respective articles do not alone confer notability. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pile-on !vote but this essentially exists to fuel unfounded, politicized fear and hatred instigated by the President of the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, salt the title, and block the creator for disruptive POV editing.Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - while "undocumented immigrants + crime" is notable (because of the political concerns), the data suggests that undocumented immigrants commit less crime than other demographic groups in the US. This list then, is a cherry-picked set which is against the normal trend. Trying to come up with an appropriately NPOV title for this list would be almost impossible. Guettarda (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guettarda. Undocumented immigrants and crime is a notable subject, but the list of said crimes isn't. The media typically talks about undocumented immigrants and crime in a general, vague sense and not specifically the individual members of the group.  Pinguinn     🐧   06:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wouldn't whatever the goals of this page are be better accomplished with a category?  The problem is one of scope, I think.  Imagine an alien named Goona Goons, summoned to court and convicted of, say, shoplifting a can of tuna from the neighborhood shop, or failing to wear a yellow vest while performing roadworks, or even copy-lifting prose from the Daily Beast right into en.wp. None of these minor crimes would be notable enough for a stand-alone article and so would be WP:UNDUE here.  Yet, to have the sort of meaningful list the reader is entitled to expect from the title, the page would need to include crimes that it cannot because they were not "notable".  Imagine another alien, this time called AgonsAgons & co., registered on some balmy island or wind-blown rock, which decided to defy the US government proscription on trade with Venezuela (think of the BoE holding Venezuelan gold, for example) Sudan, or Iran; or which was convicted of discriminatory labor practices or tax fraud.  This would be notable enough to add to the page, and yet seems entirely out of sync with inaccurate (US) readers' expectations that an alien is necessarily a living person. (This was mentioned above.)   SashiRolls t ·  c 07:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is now pitchfork-canvassing from WP:ANI. I have struck my !vote and comments because I'm not going to participate in this mess. I don't care too much about this list, and a category should suffice as per WP:CLT. w umbolo   ^^^  10:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering where the rush of Delete votes came from. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SYNTH mess. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep- It is simply a list, we have plenty of other similar lists see Category:Lists of criminals (not sure how to link to that). The criteria for inclusion on this list can be debated elsewhere. The delete arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, presumably to promote a political narrative that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:SYNTH? More importantly, have you considered joining the reality club? <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 15:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a list, it is an undisputed fact that illegal immigrants commit crimes and there are plenty of reliable sources to back that up. It is not SYNTH.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job destroying the strawman of "illegal immigrants do not commit crimes". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. As well as this being an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation, the list is hopelessly biased. When I looked at it earlier today all of the entries dated from after 1990, and, more egregiously, all of the claimed perpetrators of these crimes, except for one token Chinese, were Latin American. Illegal aliens have existed in the US, and some of them have been committing crimes, since the first immigration restrictions were introduced in the 19th century, and have been from many different ethnic groups. This article is just as bad as an article called List of crimes committed in the United States by legal residents that only listed crimes committed by Irish Americans. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is quite a short list, 12 crimes. That is part of the point, actually.  Individuals expecting to find a long list of crimes to support Trump's assertions will be disappointed.  The perps come from  many countries (Phil Bridger missed perp in Murder of Casey Chadwick,) but the point is that this is NOT a list categorized by ethnic group, it is a list of notable crimes committed by persons in a country illegally, and they come in all colors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I did not miss Murder of Casey Chadwick, and it led me to say "Latin American", which includes Haiti, rather than "Hispanic". If you're going to edit in this area then you need at least to understand such distinctions. Why, out of all the illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the United States since the concept of "illegal aliens" existed, did you choose to list eleven crimes supposedly committed by Latin Americans and one other, all (except maybe one) from the last 20 years? If you can't see that that is obvious bigotry then you shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Latin America" is a geographic therm. You made an ethnographic assertion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Phil, you may well be correct that there have been many "illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the United States." I hope that you will add some of these crimes to the list. Were some of the perps in the French Connection here illegally?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say that many illegal aliens have committed crimes, but that some have, and there is strong evidence for the basic common sense that illegal aliens are less likely to commit crimes than legal residents. Certainly, if I was an illegal alien, I would try to keep my head down and not do anything that might draw the attention of the authorities towards me. If I thought that this was a viable article I would add some balance to it, but, as I said at the beginning of the comment that started this thread, this is an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note I deleted an oppose !vote because it was a part of a triple edit with several personal attacks. The editor can try !voting again. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - On a purely technical level, the list's notability criteria is non-existent. Is it purely just for violent crime? On a moral level, the list is nothing more than hate speech. It would be along the same lines as having a "List of crimes committed in Germany by Jews." In other words, it is functioning as a soapbox (and recruitment tool) for xenophobes in the United States. Therefore, delete per WP:SOAP.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 05:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete — MarshalN20 explained it pretty well. Say no to a category, too. Zerotalk 12:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Random, subjectively chosen collection of crimes, fulfilling no encyclopaedic purpose. Clear PoV fork. No objective criteria do, (or could) exist for inclusion in this list. As others have said, about as transparently offensive as it gets. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. No connection is shown.  Kablammo (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt. Irrelevant intersection of two unrelated factors. What's next? List of crimes committed in the Republic of North Macedonia by people wearing silly hats? In all seriousness, this article leads one to simple WP:UNDUE and speculative concerns. I don't see that as a net plus to the project. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - At best this is a PoV fork which is presented more like a conspiracy theory, at worst this is a breaching experiment by xenophobes who won't cram it or change the subject. The fact that no crimes before the '90's are listed is certainly enough to suspect shenanigans, especially given 1800s and turn-of-the-century America's quite blatant xenophobia (especially towards the Irish, Africans, Italians, and Chinese, whether they were native-born or not). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 03:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.