Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12

Bitcoin – Consensus obtained that notability has now been met. Article moved back to mainspace. Given the apparent COI editing on the article, additional eyes are appropriate. – Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article has had a turbulent history, with an AfD marred by SPA activity, a lot of agitation suggesting off-wiki canvassing, two previous DRVs on August 4 and September 26, and repeated reposting which led me to salt the title. However, over the last weeks the incubator version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin has been seriously improved. In my opinion the references are now good enough for the article to be returned to the main space, but in view of the history I bring it here for the community's view. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: The reasons for its original deletion has been fixed. It does still have a dependence on largely one source (the bitcoin forum) for its more detailed information due to a lack of in-depth (longer that a newspaper article) secondary sources. This does not merit its continued deletion though. As a contributor I feel obliged to abstain though. Ultra two (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration: This is a slamdunk case. Has 3 notable third party sources from PC World, Irish Times and LWN. The article is neutral enough yet informative. The writing is a lot better. (Note I edited this article since it's been renominated) Genjix (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, I was involved in the AFD and some related discussions. While I agree with Ultra two that the current version is still too reliant on the bitcoin's forum and self published sources, I also note that the article is much better than it was and that there are now sufficient reliable sources to support the article. It still needs some work, but I don't think we'll be finished with wikipedia today. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restoration The incubated version of the article makes a credible claim of notability and provides appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as original deleting admin The original deletion was sound as two previous DRVs have shown. The new references which have only become available since the original deletion make the recreation of the article justified, therefore no deletion review is necessary. Please get on with the article. However, I sense some COIs and this article may need some watching. Polargeo (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I do see lots of Conflicts of Intrest, not sure this is reason to keep it deleted though. But maybe at least modifying the start to "Bitcoin is a experimental peer-to-peer e-cash system" and removing some of the bolder statements. Bitcoin can be looked upon as a Pyramid scheme/Multilevel marketing[1], I'm having a hard time explaining that problem with the system on Wikipedia in a senseable way. Emj (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitcoin is nothing like a pyramid scheme. If you think that the Bitcoin network per se is a pyramid scheme you have misunderstood how Bitcoin works. Please read the white paper on bitcoin.org. A pyramid scheme is unsustainable by design, the Bitcoin economy is deflationary but not unsustainable by design. The internal workings of Bitcoin are a little confusing for someone not familiar with cryptography, which is why this is a common misconception. Yes, Bitcoin could theoretically be used in a pyramid scheme, but that is true for any e-currency. --Cambrasa confab 12:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Bitcoin has now independently been reviewed by LWN.net and PCWorld, two influential publications on internet topics. The EFF, an influential charity, now accepts Bitcoin donations. Bitcoin has grown considerably since the last deletion review. At the time of writing, there is no virtual currency in circulation remotely comparable to Bitcoin, and it serves as a good example to illustrate the concept of a p2p cryptocurrency. --Cambrasa confab 12:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore There are now close to 5 million bitcoins[2], and at the current exchange rate of ~$0.22 USD/bitcoin[3], that means approx $1,100,000 USD worth of bitcoins exist in the bitcoin economy. This is significant. --Em3rgent0rdr confab 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle has a house worth more than that. Do you think his house should have a page on wikipedia? Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on socks what is with all the puppets and conflict of interest users this topic has recieved? Any admin watching please move the page from the incubator to mainspace so we don't have to listen to people talking this marginally notable subject up any more. And whist we are at it I think an investigation is necessary as it seriously appears that dormant accounts have been compromised or bought in some way to promote this subject. Polargeo (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clarify a few things: Yes, I have been inactive on Wikipedia for a while. Yes, I have been following the Bitcoin project for several months now. Yes, I came back here to voice my opinion on Bitcoin. But I did this of my own accord. I was not canvassed by anyone. If this is considered a breach of policy, then I wasn't aware of that and I'm sorry. But I can assure you that this account has not been compromised. --Cambrasa confab 15:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making reference to you specifically, there are several suspicious dealings with regard to accounts commenting on Bitcoin. If you have a general interest in the subject that is not influenced by other contributors asking you to come and express an opinion then that is fine. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't making a comment about me either. I don't think this is properly something that should be attributed to sock puppets at all, but rather to a convergence of people who are comfortable with using computers and aren't intimidated with a wiki editing interface, even if they may be new to Wikipedia. That such people are rare to come into Wikipedia anymore in large groups is more of a sad statement about Wikipedia than the people who are commenting here. You can look at my edit history on Wikipedia yourself if you think I came here just to edit this article. If anything, this is generating a whole bunch of ill will toward Wikipedia and gives rise to concerns about a "cabal of deletionists", even if it isn't necessarily true. There certainly was no canvassing saying "come here to get this decision overturned", and in fact I made the exact opposite plea: I suggested that those in the Bitcoin community to sit on their hands and let this go through the AfD/DR sausage mill and don't worry about the article until after a decisions has been made by "uninvolved editors". I do think this was a wasted promotional event for Wikipedia, and is an example for why the Wikipedia community is in decline at the moment. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, please list the suspicious accounts. KLP (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-if restored, protect immediately from new users-this one is a crapmagnet.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The incubated article is ready for the mainspace. And, new and returning users are to be made welcome on Wikipedia. Okay?—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, this article has received a lot of very very suspicious coordinated effort from allied off wiki contributors, this is a separate issue from the existence of the article. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bitcoin community effectively runs a PR group to promote itself on the forums. There isn't a problem with sockpuppets, just lots of people who deeply care about bitcoin and get genuinely angry when its wikipedia article is deleted. This can cause chaos, but can equally be channeled for good (where do you think all this improvement has come from). We don't need to semi-protect bitcoin, just explain to a lot of people about wikipedia's rules, in helps . Expect violations of WP:PROMOTION. The canvassing (its not explicit canvassing, but has a similar effect) has been largely organized from here. Ultra two (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. the trouble has been that the "PR Group to promote itself on the forums" has rather too obviously regarded Wikipedia as a vehicle for that campaign. If members of the Bitcoin community who understand Wikipedia can gently explain to the rest that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and that attempts to use it as one are almost always counter-productive because the Wikipedia community is very sensitive to that issue, we shall all get along much better. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, people have explained this on the forums and the improvements are largely a result of members of the community coming to their senses and working to get the article undeleted. Ultra two (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has Wikipedia thought to accept bitcoin donations as the Electronic Frontier Foundation does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.2.118 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining - at least so far as leaving it up to others who are more neutral about the topic. Yes, there is a group of relatively inexperienced Wikipedia users that have been visiting this page and adding contributions. I have also been very patient about trying to explain Wikipedia guidelines on those other forums and to explain why this was deleted originally and to suggest ways to engage in promotion that didn't involve Wikipedia. I've also been trying to be patient on the talk page. BTW, the reason this has to go to deletion review is because it needs an admin to clean up the mess that has happened from the previous page moves and some other problems. I'd like to request that if this gets moved back, that the admin also undelete the older talk page, or at least move that to an "archive" sub-page as there was some content discussion which was deleted and was not restored with the userfication. It is going to require some experienced admin TLC here and not some drive-by push buttoning to clean up this mess. Note here that three substantive sources of at least the popular journalistic variety have been written about this topic since the last deletion review, which is why I suggested it get put here in the first place. --97.117.75.152 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User talk:Malcolm Schosha – Overtaken by events but the consensus was to overturn and undelete – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Jpgordon (talk · contribs) deleted this user talk page of a banned sockpuppeteer (renamed to Kwork2 (talk · contribs)) per WP:CSD#U1, which however explicitly excludes user talk pages. No other speedy deletion criteria apply.

In particular, WP:RTV is not a valid reason for deletion by Jpgordon. A recent RFC concluded (and WP:RTV#Deletion of user talk pages confirms) that user talk pages of vanishing users may only exceptionally be deleted by decision of the renaming bureaucrat. Jpgordon is not a bureaucrat. Moreover, the page was already deleted once in 2008 per WP:RTV and then restored because the user subsequently reappeared, which indicates that this user's vanishings tend not to be permanent. Finally, the user continues to make much personal information public at commons:User:Malcolm Schosha and meta:User:Malcolm Schosha, which also makes any claims that he wants to disassociate himself from his Wikipedia activity less credible.

The speedy deletion was therefore procedurally flawed and should be overturned. The page may then either be listed at WP:MFD so that the community can discuss whether there are any good reasons to delete it, or the renaming bureaucrat can make that decision per RTV. (There are reasonable arguments for deletion, which do not convince me fully, but in any case it is not Jpgordon's job to make that decision.)

Relevant discussion is at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork and at User talk:Jpgordon#User talk:Malcolm_Schosha. The most recent deletion by JzG (talk · contribs) was merely a redirect to the renamed user talk page. Sandstein 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoration, and note that even in 2008, when the first deletion under RTV was done, RTV did not include deletion of talk pages. MfD is the proper venue for user talk page deletions, speedy does not apply. If there are specific problem diffs then they should be submitted for oversight. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. We had an RfC on this last month at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish (see here), and the consensus was clear that user talk pages should not be deleted, unless the circumstances are in some way compelling. In addition, this user exercised the right to vanish before, with User:Kwork, and didn't vanish, so that right has been forfeited anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore per my commentary at the RFC.—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support restoration -- i like the compromise designed by User:Sandstein at the wwp:anithread. User:Smith Jones 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore per nom. Gaming the system should not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - One admin's views doesn't override consensus reached at the RFC and the guideline in question, and not the type of case IAR is appropriate for IMO. VegaDark (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - Banned users don't get to determine the content of Wikipedia pages, and in particular, talk pages are not supposed to be deleted. At most, it can be blanked but the history needs to be left intact. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - Per recent RFC. Besides, user is still active under the same name on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore it can be placed at Kwork2 talk, with the appropriate redirects from MS.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to User talk:Kwork2. Insufficient evidence has been given that this deletion was necessary and proper.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the unanimous consensus so far, and Jpgordon's comment "don't care", I have undeleted the page. In the event of a different outcome of this discussion (which remains a theoretical possibility) it can be re-deleted. This or another discussion can determine whether the page should also be moved or redirected to User talk:Kwork2. Sandstein 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Elliot McGucken – Speedily sent to AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot McGucken (2nd nomination) – Courcelles 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that the debate was over 18 months ago I can't imagine DRV is going to overturn the outcome, particularly since the outcome was no-consensus, so there isn't much of a bar to you just starting a new AFD debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rappelz – Restore and relist at AFD – Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

No consensus. The article was nominated for deletion on grounds of failing notability guidelines. Since then, the notability of the subject has been established with several independent sources listed on the AFD page. This has been acknowledged even by the editor who originally listed the article for deletion. [4] 78.131.80.59 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and improve, or just Relist. Whilst I couldn't really see any other way of closing the AfD given that there were no actual !votes other than delete, there does appear to be a possibility that the article could be improved to meet WP:N. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - A lousy article being poorly written is not grounds for deletion, and that many of the sources are not in English is also not grounds to dismiss the notability. While I think the game is being operated by a slimy operator with annoying ads to bring people into the game, my political opinion of the game should not be the basis for its deletion in terms of notability and certainly needs somebody to address the sources which were presented at the end of the AfD to at least assert they are unreliable. As far as I can tell, this topic certainly fits the definition of notability with "two or more reliable sources" with no dispute over the reliability of those sources presented. I've seen other sources at least in terms of noting it is one of the "minor" MMORPGs that at least give this game some acknowledgement from time to time. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - I saw this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. User:194.160.173.224 linked to multiple reliable sources covering the subject 3 hours before its deletion, which closed before anyone else had time to comment on them. Undelete the article, and allow time for editors to improve it before revisiting. - hahnch e n 00:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - as the nominator I would like additional time to go through the new sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Immigration and crime – clearly endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Colonel Warden's links / reason, which the administrator Sandstein preferred over to the majority's given opposite statements, lead to books of two non-reliable authors. And I'm strongly disagree with Sandstein's opinion that no convincing reasons for deletion were provided, they were provided by several users there. And I'm raising article's authors politcal views because it's an ISSUE here, usual people wouldn't try to blame the entire group of people but instead focus on individuals that do it without labeling others for their attitudes / crimes. We already have similar and a highly controversial article here, do we really need another one which undoubtedly was made to make bias against immigrants, here's an example from this article "and counting on the amount of money criminal immigrants cost the society has been banned with the explanation that "...you cannot calculate the value of human lives"." Note the tone it was made of. It's a clear pushing of views. And as administrator sees these books as convincing for keeping, so what now if some authors wrote about crimes by giving their books almost identical titles - that should be enough to create an article here under this title? No, there are many other aspects which should be taken into account when approaching this debate. And users from first discussion for deletion and the second gave reasonable statements why this article shouldn't be under its currently given title and that it can't be neutral as the title itself prohibits it by its own title and how it puts the question, don't disregard them so fast like the admin Sandstein who found them all unconvincing. Userpd (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or relist, though on simpler grounds than the nominator puts forward. The politics are irrelevant to our purposes, but what is relevant is that the books linked in the discussion, cited by the closer, are not from reliable academic presses. Chick Bowen 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Most of the delete opinions assume that the subject is inherently POV, which it isn't. The intersection between these two topics in politcs is very notable and there is frequent discussion of the issue in reliable sources. I think a well-written and encyclopedic article can be built off of this topic; one that summarizes the debate and literature that is currently out there and doesn't give way to misleading statistics or other political pandering. This was a tough close to make but apropos of the misreadings of our NPOV policy (ones that assume politically controversial subjects inevitably lead to POV articles) I think Sandstein made the right call. Them From Space 05:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as sources go, 10 minutes on a library web catalogue gave
  - Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000. by Tim Wadsworth, University of Colorado Boulder
  - Higher Immigration, Lower Crime. by Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute
  - Mexican Immigration: Insiders' Views on Crime, Risks, and Victimization. from the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice
  - CRIME AND IMMIGRATION by Gino Speranza, in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
  - Latino Employment and Black Violence: The Unintended Consequence of U.S. Immigration Policy. by Edward Shihadeh and Raymond Barranco, LSU
  - IMMIGRATION AND CRIME IN AN ERA OF TRANSFORMATION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF HOMICIDES IN SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODS by Ramiro Martinez, Jacob Stowell, and Matthew Lee - Criminology
- and I'm sure there's tons more literature on the subject than that. Them From Space 05:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget:
  - Lee, Matthew T.; Martinez, Ramiro (2009). "Immigration reduces crime: an emerging scholarly consensus". In McDonald, William Frank (ed.). Immigration, Crime and Justice. Sociology of Crime Law and Deviance. Vol. 13. Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 3–16. doi:10.1108/S1521-6136(2009)0000013004. ISBN 9781848554382. ISSN 1521-6136. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  - Rumbaut, Rubén G.; Ewing, Walter A. (2007). "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among Native and Foreign-Born Men". Immigration Policy Center. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Ironically for all of these claims about POV-pushing, the first chapter of McDonald2009, one of the very books cited in the AFD discussion, is Lee & Martinez 2009 arguing that immigration reduces crime based upon a review of the scholarly literature on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first book is by Jacob I. Stowell assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and published by academic publishing house LFB Scholarly Publishing, and the second book is edited by William Frank McDonald professor and co-director of the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure at Georgetown University, published by Emerald Group Publishing, and containing articles written by people such as Matthew T. Lee associate professor of Sociology at the University of Akron and Ramiro Martinez Jr, associate professor of Criminal Justice at Florida International University.
Are you, Userpd and Chick Bowen, seriously trying to sell the idea that these are not credentialled experts writing in their fields of expertise? Or did you simply not check things out at all? You certainly didn't see that it was Trigaranus who first cited McDonald2009, not Colonel Warden. Nor, clearly, did you look at the table of contents of McDonald2009, or its list of contributors on pages xi–xiii. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- look, there are more books which are pretty much of the same reliability (the University of Michigan, Oxford University Press US) with titles that draw an assumption between ethnicities and crime, should we create an article for this too? Ethnicity and crime? So, like I said, there are other aspects which should we take into account, most of crimes which are done by immigrants not being implied in the article by its current title. And makes it look as their immigration status is the reason for more crimes. Userpd (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's expert scholarship on the subject that analyses such a relationship, then yes, obviously. Have you misunderstood what we are doing in this project? Expert scholarship documenting an area of human knowledge is something that people can only wish for in some subjects, and certainly provides the best foundation for an encyclopaedia that is intended to provide a systematization and summary of such knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse. This isn't exactly a difficult verdict to reach. How can it possibly have been a good idea to turn "immigration and crime" into a redlink? If there's a link between immigration and crime, then that's definitely to be explained on Wikipedia--and if there's no link between them, then that too definitely needs to be said.—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: The current article isn't about "immigration and crime". It's about "immigrants as perpetrators of crime". It either needs to explore the subject of immigrants as victims of crime as well, or change its name. An article called "immigration and crime" would need to mention issues like human trafficking.—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - You're forgetting that separate contents of article can be better fit into other articles e.g. if there are mexican cartels in America, then it to be put in the article "Crime in the U.S.". So if you think it's about to get rid of information then you're wrong, it's just about how it being put. Userpd (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm disregarding it, because it's wrong.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since it doesn't look like this article is being deleted, I'd advise those who are concerned to get busy adding important information, like the human trafficking, and cites of statistics showing where it's a problem and where it isn't. Also, any historical info on US history of immigration where there was a very free immigration policy for a few hundred years (to the Native Americans dismay, of course) is relevant. In fact, in that case the colonialists were a bunch of land grabbing murderers. Hmmm, and then there's Israel's colonialists and lots of others (Albanians in Kosovo, for example, and they were supported by US; another interesting case.) When do people stop being immigrants and start being colonialists anyway? (Properly signed this time) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is, in fact, already covered by the sources cited as potential sources for expansion in the AFD discussion. Immigrants as victims of crime are tackled by chapters 5—9 of McDonald2009, with articles written by people such as professor Toni Makkai and Natalie Taylor (of the AIC). It has proven difficult to get people to even look at chapter 1 of the source cited in the AFD discussion, or even just its table of contents (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse sure there are potential problems with NPOV here and maybe more obviously so than other articles, but that's not a reason to delete. From a social sciences and political view point there is plenty written on the subject, provide the article sticks to these sources then there should be no problem, remebering the N in NPOV is Neutral, not No. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's no reason to delete an article because it's sensitive to certain groups. However the article does need to become more NPOV. Immigration affects on the crime level is an oft-spoken topic to warrant an article. That article is extremely poor quality though... Genjix (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Fortunately there are better sources than books published by LFB— a minor academic publisher, and Emerald — probably the least important of the ones that might make claim to that title. True, it is very difficult here to write about some topics, but that means we have to be careful, not avoid the subject. NPOV is intended fir difficult situations such as that; NPOV in combination with NOTCENSORED means that no topic is too controversial or sensitive to be appropriate for the encyclopedic . This article is not expected to make a conclusion about the presence or nature of the link; it is supposed to (and does) present the arguments and data published on the subject, and the readers will make up their own mind about the conclusions. As all agree, the article needs very considerable expansion. (As a note, publications by such excellent publishers as U Michigan Press, & OUP would certainly justify an article on "ethnicity and crime" — I cannot see why it is cited as a self-evidently inappropriate subject.) DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 December 2010[edit]