Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian crime in Europe

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. With phrases like "Handicapped forced to mendacity, minors pushed to delinquency, young girls subject to prostitution." and "Also Romanians are mostly the ones who will rob a not so attentive pedestrian on the street.", I was inclined to speedy this as an attack page. Neıl 龱 08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian crime in Europe

Original research, basically. Imagine articles such as German crime in the Middle-East, Czech crime in the British Isles, or Irish crime in Russia. Francis Tyers · 15:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this is not an original research, as almost every sentence is quoted with a reference to a verifiable serious source. There is a lot of statistical data in the article, and it all comes from official police reports. Secondly, the parallel with examples like Irish crime in Russia and others cannot be drawn, as Romanian crime in Europe has a mass effect in numerous countries of the European Union under different forms: from organised crime (UK, Italy, Spain, probably other EU countries touched by this phenomenon as well) to rape (Italy), murder by Romanian migrant individuals (Italy) and to credit card forgery (Spain). The EU Ministers of Home Security have met to decide and the solution is still pending in the EU instances for whether to reinstall border checks for Romanian citizen.--Moldopodo^talk 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Daily Mail is not a "serious source". At least in the UK, most of these articles are written by sensationalist, probably borderline xenophobic journalists. For comparisons, how about Polish crime in Europe, there are plenty of sources about that, including some from the Daily Mail. Also, before writing this I wonder if you think that UK tabloids are seriously able to distinguish between Moldovans and Romanians... - Francis Tyers · 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree the Daily Mail's extremist views on this subject is well known. Articles cannot be written based on the opinions of one source. It would need to be established that this subject is covered in depth by multiple sources. --neon white talk 18:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the "not so clear faith" editing of user Francis Tyers ·. First he nominates the article for deletion, then adds ocntroversial info about Moldavians. [1]--Moldopodo^talk 16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the page was already deleted from italian wiki and it's going to be deleted in russian wiki. the author was in every page Moldopodo. The references like this doesn't say anything about "romanian crimes" --Ignlig (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian wiki is irrelevant, just as others for English Wikipedia. Please state the true reason why it was deleted from the Italian wiki: because the article was improperly translated. The same reason was invoked on the Russian Wikipedia.--Moldopodo^talk 19:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the sources, there simple is little evidence that the subject itself is notable. Article is highly POV and reads like a political soapbox, it's primary claim that this is a 'wide phenomenon' is entirely unsourced. I have doubts that this can be salvaged and the neutality issues dealt with. --neon white talk 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be deleted. We can't make articles about the crimes commited by some members each country's population. Not to say that Romania itself is located in Europe, so it would mean that the crimes commited by Romanian citizens in Romania should be mentioned too. Furthermore, the term "Romanians" can reffer to 1) the Romanian ethnic group or, 2) the Romanian citizens and the article doesnn't mention which one of those meanings of the term he refers to. Besides, the article is obviously an original research. Moldopodo's anti-Romanian attitude is obvious (a look to the list of his contributions says a lot in this sense). Besides, I'm pretty sure that he can't speak Romanian even at the level of a beginner (despite of that what he pretends of the babel of his talk page). --Olahus (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be kept. There is only one POV so far in the article[2]. Argumntation of User:Neon white seems contradictory: first he states there are not enough sources (which is not true, just have a look at the sections references and links), then he states regardless of sources. User Francis Tyers · has cited an article, but it does not say anywhere in the aforementioed article what the user wrote in the Romanian crime in Europe article regarding Moldavians' implication in the crimes committed by Romanians. That is a classcal example of WP:OR. Besides the same user ctiricized the very same source he cited himself and had initially filed this deletion log. So I really doubt whether all of this is really constructive. Anyway the article is about Romanians, but certainly, should a precise quote be properly found about, it has its place in the article. Unless then, this remains original research. To the contrary, I recuse accusations of POV from my side, as each of my sentences, can be reconfirmed by clicking on, the appropriate citation referenced link, and there are plenty of them (and wil be certainly more, once we'll start to dig in for info in Italian, Spanish, German languages in plus). User:Olahus' attitude is openly anti-Moldavian, it is simply enough to check the editing story of the user. Anyway, this kind of argumentation is first of all irrelevant here. User:Olahus, please remain civil as per Digwuren arbitration.--Moldopodo^talk 19:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. bogdan (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major claims remain unsourced. This is mostly a work of WP:OR. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic of Romanian crime in a European context is certainly notable since we have multiple reliable sources such as the EU, BBC, The Times and The Economist writing about this. We don't have comparable articles about Irish crime in Russia because such other topics would be fantasy unsupported by similar reliable sources. We're just following the sources and this is neither original research nor a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources on Polish crime in Europe, should we create an article on that? - Francis Tyers · 20:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil and do not try to deviate the subject of the discussion, which is Romanian crime in Europe. You are free to create whatever you want, as long as you have it all properly sourced. If you do so, please do it as thouroughly as I did, quoting almost every sentence in the article.--Moldopodo^talk 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and remain on topic and do not make personal comments about other editors, it is considered bad taste in most internet encyclopaedias. - Francis Tyers · 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For an idea of how reliable the Daily Mail is, I was just forwarded this hilarious piece, "turning dried cannabis leaves into heroin."... Haha!! -- Francis Tyers · 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Daily Mail is not known for its fair portrayal of non-middle class ethnic British middle-aged conservatives, so I wouldn't say it was the best source for an article of this sort. Also, this article is somewhat racist, and suffers from BLP problems. As already said, we really don't have the infrastructure for articles of this sort, original research is rife, and this pretty much defines a POV fork. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using tabloids as sources, you can reach the conclusion from the first sentence, but this doesn't mean it's the truth: for instance, it's contradicted in the United Kingdom by a police study: Guardian: "Migrant crime wave a myth - police study"

A wide-ranging police study has concluded that the surge in immigrants from eastern Europe to Britain has not fuelled a rise in crime, the Guardian has learned.

The report finds that, despite newspaper headlines linking new migrants to crime, offending rates among mainly Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian communities are in line with the rate of offending in the general population.

bogdan (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AfD argument has been invalidated, since the article is not WP:OR because even nominator has changed his or her argument to find fault with The Daily Mail. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. - Francis Tyers · 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers ·, please decide what are you voting for - delete or keep the article. As of now, I see that you are rather for keeping the article, judging by the number of continuous edits[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8],

[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Please, change then your vote to "keep" consequently, so it will be clear.--Moldopodo^talk 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis is welcome to edit the page but still believe it should be deleted, don't be ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact there are sources doesn't mean that there is not a lot of original research and synthesis in the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, please, go ahead and provide a diff with original research in this article. Why just write for the sake of writing? Where exactly do you see the original research? Are you interested in the deletion or in improvement of the article? May be you mean the original research where Francis Tyers · wrote out of nowhere that Moldavians may be related to Romanian crimes (providing a false reference which does not say this), just basing on his own conclusions/inventions? I would like to note that I did not delete this invention, but simply requested a source citation for it (for now).--Moldopodo^talk 00:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Article with plenty of reliable sources. Any concerns about POV can be best addressed on the talk page. Crimes committed by ethnic groups are of encyclopedic interest when handled in NPOV terms. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For such a controversial article, we need either a neutral article, or no article. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that as an impartial user you are properly entitled to delete the unique images available from Daily Mail (showing Romanian immigrants in the UK, pictured from their back and totally anonimously) and Le Parisien [14] (showing Romanian immigrants, again in low resolution (which does not allow to see who is a man and who is a woman) training in a suburbian Parisian camp next to a highway at an improvised camp site, learning how to pretend being handicaped and beg for money in such a way in France) from the article. Having this privelege of deleting images in a totally discretionary way (and engaged, since you have mentioned your Romanian friends), I do not see how do you constructively contribute to improve the article, saying that you have Romanian friends and then baldly stating these images are replaceable (how???)... I repeat the images are unique and totally irreplaceable[15] and they are certainly necessary to imrpove the article and illustratiosn to it. But then again, since you vote to delete the article, why do you care to remove the images from the article. Is that how one improves articles' quality on Wikipedia?--Moldopodo^talk 00:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your failure to understand our non-free content criteria and your choice to completely ignore my explanation has nothing to do with this AfD. If you wish to address that issue, do so on the image talk pages or on my talk page, not here. Also, congratualtions, I never once said I had Romanian friends, only that I know of some ethnic Romanians in my area. You will also note that I have not deleted any images relating to this topic. I am here to improve the encyclopedia as a whole, and that does not mean I have any interest in improving this article- instead, I want this offensive and badly research POV fork to be deleted, I want images blatantly contrary to our goal of being a free encyclopedia deleted and I want you to stop being so confrontational so that we can have a civilised discussion about the topic. Finally, repeating your opinion over and over, then ignoring the most basic of counter arguments, is not going to get you anywhere. J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and do not address me personally first of all. That's what the basics of civility are. Secondly, it is useless to justify yourself with so many empty words. You said these images are replaceable. Please, go ahead and prove your words by uploading exactly equivalent images depicting the same thing. What are you waiting for? --Moldopodo^talk 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right place for a discussion on the images- if you want to discuss the images, go to the image talk pages or our own talk pages. And yes, I will continue to address you directly- I'm talking to you, no one else, and addressing someone directly is not uncivil, at all- you seem to have a very warped view of civility. Furthermore, as I have explained, and as you would know if you had actually bothered to read our non-free content criteria as I recommended, non-free images need to be deleted if they are replaceable, not replaced, meaning that I am under no obligation to provide a free alternative. J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a right place, why bother answer me here? Anyway, all you have done is just filling the talk page, but you have never explained how these pictures were replaceable? I have directly asked when you removed the pictures from the site how these pictures may be replaced, provide a justification for your consideration of them as replaceable. Show me an example, replace them - replaceable means: one can be able to replace them, since you decided so, you are rather the one who can replace as well, go ahead, show how the imegaes are replaceable, please!--Moldopodo^talk 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the purported numbers, Romanians appear to be less violent than the native inhabitants of their host countries--hardly the fodder for a "crime" article. "Romanian presence in Europe causes per-capita decrease in crime" might be more appropriate. This article smacks of "I don't like Romanians" and, moreover, is completely unencyclopedic in purpose. What will we have next? "List of Bank Robberies by Poles"? This is litle more than ethnic baiting. —PētersV (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no evidence that this is any more notable or any less POV than any article titled "crimes by random nationality". As far as i know wikipedia doesnt have any article on 'crime in europe' let alone crime in europe by a particular nationality'. --neon white talk 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this post[16], unfortunately User:Rezistenta keeps removing it from this disussion. The numbers shown and the number of EU countries touched, biggest countries of the EU in terms of population, police and administrative authorities reports stating that in certain categories the number of crimes committed by Romanians outnumbers the number of crimes committed by local nationals (75% of crimes are committed by Romanians in Rome), headlines of Spanish press: 200, 300, 400 Romanians arrested per arrestation!!!!, 86 servers with child porn are located in Romania (next 32 are in Russia and three servers in other European countries), political speeches by highest rank officials of respectively touched countries, disussions at the EU Commission, at the House of Commons, at the Italian Parliament... all of this makes it notable. Moreover, no other country can boast the same statistics in Europe, no other! That is why the article is notable and at the same time it does not create a precedent, as the unprecdented rise of Romanian crime in Europe has nothing to compare it to--Moldopodo^talk 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your POV. This article does not smack anything at all. Every sentence of it is based on the provided sources. Now, you have not provided any source to support your thesis or original research, call it as you wish. The numbers are not purported, but official drawn from police reports. The Spanish surveys clearly say that a certain point Romanian crimes per category (organised crime as far as I remember) outnumber even local Spanish crimes, and compare to crimes committed by other foreigners, there is an increase of 80 and something per cent for Romanian crimes in Spain.--Moldopodo^talk 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole premise of the article seems based on a personal view rather than a notable subject. Some of the source make some claims that should definetly exceptional. --neon white talk 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the article and re-check every source provided. There is not one sentence of my personal view in the article. You are grossly mistaking. The subject is more than notable, just have a look at Spanish and Italian numbers of Romanian crimes, compare to their own Italian and Spanish respectively crimes, have a look at a fierce debate that took place on the level of European Commission, on the measures Italian LEFT!!! government was thinking to implement (goes without saying, what measures plans to apply right-wing Italian government), take the note of the scale of the phenomenon, and the duration, as well as all different types of crimes committed from rapes and robbery to organised crimes and forgery, 400 Romanians arrested at a time in Spain, then 200, then 300 (exact numbers are in the links section of the article), I mean this is quite notable, you would not consider Romanian people - a less notable subject, would you?--Moldopodo^talk 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo, if you wish to spend your time tearing down ethnicities or nationals you consider to be other than your own, then please consider a more appropriate venue--perhaps your own blog--and expound however you wish. An encyclopedia written by editors of good will is no place for such baiting. It doesn't matter how many statistics you quote, the subject is editorially inappropriate. —PētersV (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from italin wiki it's true that it was deleted becouse the incorect traslation.. but you can be sure: this kind of razist article can't be stay in italian wiki.. i'm sure also in english wiki. --Ignlig (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay, biased to a particular POV, not an encyclopedia article. Gotyear (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff with a biased POV info in this article.--Moldopodo^talk 00:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire Original research (those who claim reliability of the sources as a means to "validate" the topic should read WP:SYNTH and memorize it), POVed title for a subject that stinks of national/ethnic/racial branding, slippery slope at best. Dahn (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your unsupported POV. Please provide a diff with exact POV. Otherwise it may be very well considered that you call the rest of Europe POV, when describing and govong exact statistics on Romanian crime all over Europe. This article does not smack anything at all. Every sentence of it is based on the provided sources. Now, you have not provided any source to support your thesis or original research, call it as you wish. The numbers are not purported, but official drawn from police reports. The Spanish surveys clearly say that a certain point Romanian crimes per category (organised crime as far as I remember) outnumber even local Spanish crimes, and compare to crimes committed by other foreigners, there is an increase of 80 and something per cent for Romanian crimes in Spain. Just look at the "Links" section fothe article: titles "200 Romanains arrested", "300 Romanians arrested", "400 Romanians arrested" - all in Spain speak for themselves. In Rome, according the mayor of Italian cpaital '75% of crimes are committed by Romanians, in Denmark 86 sites - were domains caught in the Danish child-porn filter placing Romania as the country with the most domains caught in the Danish child-porn filter - 86! U.S. has 43 domains, Russia - 40 and the otherwise very controlled China - 23 domains. Other Euroepan countries have three. And as we are discussing whether to keep this article, here are some updates Italy Arrests Hundreds of Immigrants 18 May 2008 and Gypsy encampments torched near Naples: agency, 443 Romanians arrested in Spain for forging thousands of credit cards, and Almost all 300 arrested for participation inthe organised crime are all Romanians, A band of 297 Rumanians was stopped in a historical blow to the organised crime, Arrested in Spain 99 members of the network which was falsisfying credit cards. Now, if you find anything similar regarding crimes committed by a particular country in Europe, yes, most certainly an article should be written on it. But I doubt there is any other of such scale as Romanian crime in Europe. --Moldopodo^talk 10:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are evidence of notability, they are simply news reports and are not evidence for the claims in the article. --neon white talk 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article would create an extremely bad precedent for other articles to be created. As the nominator pointed out, imagine some of the other pages we might have if this article was kept. Totally unencyclopedic, and totally original research. Khoi khoi 06:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redact. I think this is notable, but that the article is unacceptably biased in tone and premise; I suggest reducing it to a stub and building it up in a NPOV way, with the NPOV guideline box present. Accurate statistics for crime by any major demographic is, imo, notable and also useful for dispelling a lot of misconceptions. There should be nothing wrong with an article that presents facts in a non-biased manner. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independently of the outcome of the AfD, I will shortly speedy delete the current article for blatant copyright infringement, because almost all passages I've looked at are literally lifted from their sources and constitute plagiarism. I recommend nevertheless letting the AfD run its course in order to determine whether and under what terms to allow recreation. I wouldn't out of hand dismiss the feasability of a proper article, as organised crime by Romanian gangs has indeed been a topic of some reliably sourcable public discussion in the country I live in, but the current text is certainly not going to be its basis. And, truth be told, I doubt whether any text written by a committed anti-Romanian POV warrior like Moldopodo is ever going to be the basis of a proper article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal accusations. This is irrelevant, moreover uncivil and may be also qualified as vioaltion of [Digwuren arbitration enforcement - general restriction. I honestly think that calling users with names (moreover with no justification, as I have never edited one single article on Romania, except this one) gives neither you as a person, nor your argument much credibility.So now it's "blatant copyright infringement", funny, couple lines before it was "POV" (seems irreconcilable, doesn't it?), how will it be qualified next, interesting, another argument on "my good Romanian friends" may be? --Moldopodo^talk 10:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The research is originale and POV becouse you collected olny some news ignoring other news (crimes committed by other nationality) but there aren't studies that prove what you wrote .. in the same way I can collect the news from italian newspaper talking about nigerian (or moldova or italian) prostitutes and then say that the prostituion in italy is fault of nigerian (moldova, italian..) girls. It's incredible that you still defend this kind of article. --Ignlig (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a GROSS LIE. It's enough to click on provided references on Italian, Spanish, German, Danish links - all of them make a comparison with other countries, inlcuding their own countries, Italian and Spanish come to the conclusion in their reports that in ceratin categories, Romanian crime outweighs by far the local national crime (75% of all crimes committed in Rome are committed by Romanians), which goes without saying other foreign locally committed crimes. There are studies, take a look at the Spanish extensive criminal report made by the Instituto de Estudios de Policía, by Óscar Jaime Jiménez with very well made comparison tables. Other references do not necessarily compare Romanian crime in their respective European country, as there is nothing to compare in Europe the unprecedented raise of Romanian criminality in major populated countries: Italy, Spain, UK, Germany, France and even Scandinavia--Moldopodo^talk 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. The sources highlight instances of crimes committed by Romanians in various countries but do not assert a Romanian crime wave spreading through the continent. Toliar (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The given sources clearly show how big the rise of the Ropmanian crime rate became since 2002 - free Schengen movement of Romanians in Europe and how it accentuated from 2007 - membership of Romania in teh EU. Please check the sources, I have references every of my sentences in the article.--Moldopodo^talk 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are academic sources on crime in south east europe and the enlarged eu [17][18][19] that are alot more reliable than right wing newspapers known for their extremist views. I suggest that an more balanced article could be written about "south east european organised crime" or "crime in the enlarged eu' based on these sources. --neon white talk 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't or it's not known organised crime in romania as we know in south italy like "mafia" (cosa nostra) or "camorra" and so on .. your links are old [20] .. there was transborder organized crime , now it's not necessary becouse Est europa is in European Union. If you want talk about transborder organized crime you should talk of Africa and so on.. but why don't talk also about the level of corruction in Italy or how many mafious there are in sicily o in newyork? I mean: with the selection of only some article from newspaper you can wrote about everything, saying all or the opposit of all. --Ignlig (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as its got loads of covergae from loads of media (old and new) outlets, i remeber watching a peice about it on BBC News 24 aswell. Its a valid article and sets no precedents, why not just delete all the other articles detailing regional tensions/crime??? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this joke of an article should really exist by absurd it can only stand under the following form ..somewhat like "Citizens of Romania commiting crime in Europe" and aimed into the same direction because in all the articles cited over here by this anti-romanian pro-russian POV propagandist cites that the subject is more specifically aimed towards the Roma people also known as gypsies and not about the romanian ethnic group. But how on earth we would want to let such a racist person spreading nazi propaganda through the most popular and neutral online encyclopedia ? The answer is only one, delete this horrible nazi article Rezistenta (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil. Certainly it is about citizens of Romania and not citizens of any other country. The police from the respective countries, when it expells Romanians, this police expells Romanians namely back to Romania, and this is certainly done after checking their home address. The police does not expell Czech, Bulagarians, Albanians or Polish to Romania, the police expells Romanians back to Romania. Why is there such a detailed description of pimps as representing the major lucrative occupation in Cernavoda? What about all the Italian and Spanish as well as German and English reports? None of them speaks of gypsy, except some references are made in the article on Finland in written in Swedish. That's the only one for the whole sources. Why does Romanian Minister of Interior travels all over Europe and very often to Italy as well as to the European Commission? - because of the unprecedented rise namely of the Romanian crime rate in European countries. There is nothing racist about it, it is openly discussed and studied in universities (see the Spanish report) and at the EU level, as well as at the level of national governments and even simple people. What other nationality in Europe can boast the same rise of crime rate on European level? Do you know of any other nationality on which such numbers of arrested at once are given - 200, 300, 400 per arrestation in Spain? Do you know of any other nationality in Europe which provoked citizens, for example of Italy, to organise and head in a mob formation onto Romanians in Italy, burn their campings, etc? These are all the reasons why this is notable and not comparable to any other nationality, so it does not make a precedent for creation of other such articles, as there are no nationalities doing the same all over Europe. I agree, writing this may offend Romanians, that's why we should closely stick to the sources. But it is useless to say that Wikipedia is a free place and this article is racist (which it is not). Yes, this article might not please certain Romanians, but there is no rule on Wikipedia that articles should please Romanians. It's about truth, and so far the goal is accomplished.--Moldopodo^talk 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Please, do not delete my comments[21]--Moldopodo^talk 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transform in depth. Weak encyclopedic interest. Apparently Romanians are mixed up with Roms? --Jessika Folkerts (talk)

Certainly it is about citizens of Romania and not citizens of any other country. The police from the respective countries, when it expells Romanians, this police expells Romanians namely back to Romania, and this is certainly done after checking their home address. Why is there such a detailed description of pimps as representing the major lucrative occupation in Cernavoda? What about all the Italian and Spanish as well as German and English reports? None of them speaks of gypsy, except some references are made in the article on Finland in written in Swedish. That's the only one for the whole sources. Why does Romanian Minister of Interior travels all over Europe and very often to Italy as well as to the European Commission? - because of the unprecedented rise namely of the Romanian crime rate in European countries. There is nothing racist about it, it is openly discussed and studied in universities (see the Spanish report) and at the EU level, as well as at the level of national governments and even simple people. What other nationality in Europe can boast the same rise of crime rate on European level? Do you know of any other nationality on which such numbers of arrested at once are given - 200, 300, 400 per arrestation in Spain? Do you know of any other nationality in Europe which provoked citizens, for example of Italy, to organise and head in a mob formation onto Romanians in Italy, burn their campings, etc? These are all the reasons why this is notable and not comparable to any other nationality, so it does not make a precedent for creation of other such articles, as there are no nationalities doing the same all over Europe. I agree, writing this may offend Romanians, that's why we should closely stick to the sources. But it is useless to say that Wikipedia is a free place and this article is racist (which it is not). Yes, this article might not please certain Romanians, but there is no rule on Wikipedia that articles should please Romanians. It's about truth, and so far the goal is accomplished.--Moldopodo^talk 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if you do it on pourpose or not ... romanian are not romà only some romà people have romanian nationality.. what was burn was a romà camping .. you are not able to distinguish between them. I didn' now that romanian minister come often in Italy .. is unbelievable that you know about italy more then me. Go on man, if this is your view of wikipedia .. may be you should open your own blog. Regards --Ignlig (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, re-check all the references, none of them speaks of gypsys, except the last one in Swedish. And even that one refers both to Romanians and to Romanian gyspsys.--Moldopodo^talk 20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It amuses me your self-created vague impression which probably makes you think if you'll write the same crap allover the place you could actually fool anyone or you will make the essence fade behind your fog of propaganda and lies. Those article clearly state like I mentioned and proved upper in the page that the subjects are about the ROMA PEOPLE aka gypsies not about ROMANIANS, the nomad style of travelling is part of the tradition of Roma people (gypsies). What do you actually want to prove because I don't understand ? Rezistenta (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's the main point: in italy journalist and people are not able to distinguish between romà people and romanian.. you are not helping saying that "onto Romanians in Italy, burn their campings" .. in this sentence you don't show the knowledge of the difference .. you are taking a mix of news trying to say that a great % of crimes in italy is committed by romanian ... i'm sorry for you. It's not true (first there is sicilian mafia, then camorra, then 'ndrangheta, then a lot of drug dealer are from albania, nigeria and prostitution from moldova, romania, nigeria.. and so on ..) .. then , try to read different newspaper. Thanx --Ignlig (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wipe the floor with your refferences,(actually 1 refferenece because all others cites what I said earlier) . If you actually want or need encyclopedic refferences I'll give you but till then I tought I should give you another chance of acknowledging your mistake, which is my way to respond with tolerance to intolerance Rezistenta (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. All the references provided in this article clearly refer exclusively to Romanians and not to anybody else. This is a mere WP:OR to try to say something else, what references do not say.--Moldopodo^talk 22:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Toliar. Some of the facts are reliably sourced, but they do not support the article's claim that Romania's 2007 entry into the EU has resulted in a massive increase of crime disproportionate to Romania's population or crime in general.

Also, the facts presented for Spain are for 2001-3, comparing with only the other Balkan countries. The article's quote "The main responsible of the crime increase in Spain is without any doubt, the crime committed by Romanians, what represents the 80,1 % of the crime coming from the Balkan Countries" begins "In spite of the fact that all countries, individually considered, show an increasing trend".

The ones for Germany and France are more general, the one date being 2002, and I can't understand some of the sentences, ie. "Hadicaped forced to mendicity, minors pushed to delinquency, young girls subject to prostitution."

The second half of the UK section is almost entirely word-for-word from refs 10-12, with only one sentenced acknowledged as a quote. I also question using the Daily Mail as a primary source for that section, for this controversial topic and that paper's anti-immigration editorial stance. (I haven't found an unimpeachable source that it's anti-immigration, but it seems likely.)

The Italy section is significant and subsequent to Romania's accession to the EU, and the BBC & IHT are reliable sources with a balanced editorial policy.

However, the article as a whole attempts to synthesize that since Romanians are/have been shown more likely to commit crimes, it was a mistake to admit them into the EU. But none of the sources state that, and the balance of the sources do not support that. Hence, WP:SYNTH applies. TransUtopian (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nowhere its says so in the article the article as a whole attempts to synthesize that since Romanians are/have been shown more likely to commit crimes, it was a mistake to admit them into the EU. This is your own inetrpretation, nothing like that is writtent in the article.--Moldopodo^talk 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, not directed at any individual, but remember to disagree with the ideas, not attack the person presenting them, no matter how strongly you feel. I'm trying to convey a reminder from a peer, not condescension, but if I come across as the latter, I'm sorry. TransUtopian (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the phrasing earlier of (in bold) "What other nationality in Europe can boast the same rise of crime rate" rather makes the point the editorial POV of the article is that Romanians are, indeed, a crime scourge on Europe. —PētersV (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every country would probably have her nationals commiting crimes in other countries, Wikipedia isn't the place to document all of them. Chimeric Glider (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Exactly. The opening statement is "Romanian crime in Europe has increased in the countries of the European Union (EU) since Romanian membership of the organisation." But you'd need to show an overwhelming increase for it to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. What you have are scattered news articles and presentations documenting specific incidents and increases. "In spite of the fact that all countries, individually considered, show an increasing trend" means that Romania is not alone in increased crime (and that's just among the Balkans from before EU membership). The sources do not mention a continent/EU-wide increase of Romanian crime vis-à-vis other countries' citizens. Toliar (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's also important to note that:

"Industry would close without them, especially the Romanians and especially small and medium firms," said Antonio Ricci, an immigration specialist at the charity Caritas/Migrantes in Rome. "Business owners are really worried about this campaign because they need this workforce - they are good workers.

"It will be a big problem if Romanians start feeling unwelcome in Italy and go to the U.K. instead."

Also:

Also Thursday, the Italian police announced that they were in the process of breaking up immigrant-operated criminal rings of Albanians, Chinese and Moroccans dealing in commodities from trash to drugs to arms.

International Herald Tribune's other article on the matter:

The focus of Italian concern about immigrant crime are the Roma, known here as "nomads", who come mainly from Romania and other Eastern European countries.

In League-run Verona, Mayor Flavio Tosi said his city had the biggest Romanian community in Italy. "There are 7,000 of them, working as builders, artisans and domestics. And they themselves say the Roma are a problem," he said.

So this one seems to be exaggerated a bit. Squash Racket (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the problem is aimed to the Roma people holding Romanian citizenship, not towards Romanians, this is a gross attempt of anti-romanian propaganda Rezistenta (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this AfD there is no distinction. Please refrain from commenting any more along these lines. - Francis Tyers · 10:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment was not aimed at me. I only cited two relevant articles from the International Herald Tribune, a newspaper of record. Squash Racket (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Tyers I agree with your views about this topic and i'm on the same side but please don't teach me what I'm allowed or not to say, keep your advices for those who need them, and my comment came only to confirm Squash Racket's article from International Herald Tribune Rezistenta (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was unnecessary and unproductive. People can read about anti-Romaism on the part of Romanians in other places in the Wikipedia without having a live demonstration here. - Francis Tyers · 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also modified my comment (that could make others think it had been me who wanted to emphasize that part of the quote) and completely removed another one. Squash Racket (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was speedy deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia, some of the comments:
- Bórrese Hacer un articulo agrupando los crimenes cometidos por miembros de una comunidad o grupo etnico no es neutral, ya que la idea es en si misma xenofoba y conlleva abrir un peligroso campo para crear articulos del tipo "anexo:asesinatos cometidos por negros".XQNO Raccontami... 17:07 15 jun 2008 (UTC)
Delete To make an article grouping crimes comitted by members of a community of ethnic group is not neutral, as the idea is in itself xenophobic and sets a dangerous precedent for creating articles such as "Murders committed by blacks".
Aye. African-American murder in the United States is still unwritten, same with Jewish financial fraud in Europe and British drunk-driving in Spain. bogdan (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bogdan hits the nail on the head. An article such as the one being discussed here does nothing but create and promulgate negative stereotypes. —PētersV (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bórrese El artículo es tendencioso: se afirman muchas cosas, por ejemplo sobre la pertenencia de Rumanía a la Unión Europea, sin probarlas. Es decir: además de lo referente al tema, contiene juicios de valor globales sobre Rumanía y su situación actual, siempre de tono negativo.--Irus (discusión) 08:51 16 jun 2008 (UTC)
Delete The article is biased: it states many things without testing them, for example about the membership of Romania in the European Union. It also contains value judgements about Romania and its current situation, and always negative ones.
- Bórrese ...es el fenómeno amplio que ocurre principalmente en países de la Unión europea desde la calidad de miembro rumana de la organización en 2007... a mi eso me parece muy tendencioso. Srengel (discusión) 13:48 16 jun 2008 (UTC)
_quotation_ this seems to me very biased.
- Francis Tyers · 10:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question, why not to copy paste all answers, including mine from the Spanish Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldopodo (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 June 2008

Because your opinion has already been well rehearsed. - Francis Tyers · 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What was said on the Spanish Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia, Wikimedia project or any other site at all) is irrelevant, just as what conclusion other AfDs came to is (mostly) irrelevant. Please can we keep our discussion to the merits of this article on this project. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish AfD is relevant to the article as it discusses the article, as it is relevant to the deletion process as it discusses the deletion process. It is also relevant to the deletion process of this article, as it discusses a translation of this article. - Francis Tyers · 16:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Discussions held on other Wikipedia projects and decisions made there hold no bearing here. Different projects have different policies, standards and norms. 90.242.102.24 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, 90.242... was me. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reasons presented *may* carry less weight due to differing policies, but they can also be valid due to similar ones. I find To make an article grouping crimes comitted by members of a community of ethnic group is not neutral, as the idea is in itself xenophobic and sets a dangerous precedent for creating articles such as "Murders committed by blacks" a compelling argument. Toliar (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I see where you are coming from there. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Bogdan. WP:SOAP hatchet piece that has no hope of being converted into a neutral article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just two questions please: what exactly is not neutral in the article as it stands today, and what can you suggest to improve the article if you think it is not neutral? Thanks in advance for your answer.--Moldopodo^talk 12:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the focus on the criminal activities of a specific ethnic group that is not neutral. You could not edit the article to correct this, just as the article on Murders by African-Americans could not be improved to have a NPOV. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is precisely, no African-American were arrested by 200, 300, 400 per arrestation per day in a European country (like it was in Spain with Romanians), no raise of crime rate by African-American was ever talked about by the European Commission (like it is the case with Romanians), no African-American had a report written on them by a Police Instutute that pointed out that they commit more crimes in in a country than the country's nationals (like it is the case with Romanians in Spain in teh category of organised crime). Do you know of a European city where 75% of crimes are committed by African-American (like it is the case in Rome with Romanians)? Did any European country arrest at once 2000 African-American like it was in Spain with Romanians? Which other country in Europe has 86 child porn servers (Romania)? (and you know that the rest of European countries have 3 servers per country on the average)? Did any natonals of a European country attack in an organised mob African-Americans, burned their homes (like it was in Italy with Romanians)? Did any EU country think of closing its borders against African-American (like it is for Romanians, with the notorious Italian Expulsion Decree and Eu safeguard mechanisms), etc, etc, etc - did African-American do at least something simlilar in Europe and did Europeans have the same problems with them as with Romanians, are African-American a centre of criminal and illicit immigration debate all over Europe? I think you know the answer - it is NO. That's why I humbly submit that it is impossible to compare the context of unprecedented Romanian crime in Europe to anything else, as there is no precedent, unless you find one--Moldopodo^talk 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no encyclopedic interest --Bluehunt (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly "no necyclopedic interest"? - this is one of the major European problems and debates on all levels - from most read Euroeepan press up to almost litteral fighting between EU Commissioners, investigations at the House of Commons, works published by Police Institute of Spain, declarations of politicians and consequent urgency legislations, local population' uprisal... Are you really serious that all of this has no encyclopedic interest?

Comment - you have just put your finger on the problem. Wikipedia is definitely not the place for righting the world's wrongs. Encyclopedia articles must be neutral overviews of verifiable facts, not opinions or calls to action. If you can find widely accepted research that shows that Romanians - specifically because they are Romanians - are significantly more criminal than other ethnic groups then you have the basis of an article about the "Romanian problem". Or if it's a definable sub-group of Romanians then you could write an article like Mafia (which by the way is not about the criminality of Italians in general) andy (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff where thsi artciel is "opinions or calls to action". Well you have this research - it is Spanish research by the Police Instutute it shows you all the comparative studies and explain sin plenty of pages and tables how Romanians lead over other coutnries. You have English police reports, you have Italian police reports and political declarations as well as application of the respective legislation. You have EU legislation on safegyuards. Did you really check the references provided in the article or you are simply saying this blindly? "If you can find" - it is found and tehre already. Do you think I have invented all those numbers and table in the article? --Moldopodo^talk 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, non-neutral and unencyclopedic. It reads like a tabloid newspaper article not an encyclopedia article: long on opinion but short on verifiable facts. Would this be of value to a researcher? No andy (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article "short on verifiable facts", if litterally every sentence is sourced. You have plenty of official sources, research, declarations, legislation, police reports - how can you call this "short on verifiable data", "original research", etc. Honestly, I have basicly reformulated the original sources to avoid copy-paste accusations, and have certainly not added any personal input. You are welcome to improve the article, it's not mine, nor yours, it's the one of the community and everybody is justly entitled to make her or his input in the spirit od healthy constructive collaboration. Saying blindly "original research", "no verifiable facts" is not convinving, without any diff provided. What exactly is original research, can you say please? What exactly is unverifiable? Please answer. You are most welcome to improve the article by editing straight ahead.--Moldopodo^talk 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the amount of sources, it's the quality and the way they are being used. It's synthesis to promote a political point of view. --neon white talk 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire (I hope that wasn't copyrighted). It's WP:SYN, it's POV, it's unencylopedic -- and in some articles those can be fixed, but in real life not this one. But much worse, it is racist (thinking about it, particularly racist if there are no comparable articles, what a nightmare!), it is ethnic baiting (and may well end up in the media if it stays), it will be a battleground, it will bring Wikipedia into disrepute, and it will be a precedent for other articles.

I think you've voted once already, didn't you?--Moldopodo^talk 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think we're voting? Doug Weller (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[ removed random pasting from the twat-o-tron - Francis Tyers · 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - I've raised Moldopodo's increasingly disruptive edits in this debate, particularly the most recent which has now been reverted, at WP:ANI. andy (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Weak Keep. There's a notable topic hiding in there: there's a lot of concern in western continental Europe about crime perpetrated by Romanian gangs, and it's a commonly discussed in the media (especially the tabloid press). So it's a notable topic by virtue of the attention being paid to it, whether or not the claims reflect actual reality. But the article itself has serious POV issues, and the cited references (at least the ones from reputable sources, among which I don't include tabloids like the Daily Mail) generally don't back up the claims in the article. So this really needs a lot of work to turn into a decent article, with the focus changed so that it's a NPOV discussion of the allegations and the surrounding controversy rather than a repetition of tabloid fearmongering. Klausness (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I was, when I voted redact a few days ago. Reading the discussion, though, makes me think that the primary contributor to this article is unable to avoid NPOV issues, and perhaps it needs to be rewritten from the ground up. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least in its present incarnation, as a violation of WP:SYN and WP:SOAPBOX. The phenomenon has received attention, but this tabloid-like piece is not the proper venue for treating the subject. And by the way, Romania is in Europe, so the title is misleading. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many arguments already posited-- can't really add more that has not already been said. It is perhaps a not so veiled attack on Romanians-- laying so many of Europe's ills at the feet of the Romanian immigrant population. Keep arguments just are not convincing. Dloh cierekim 03:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.