Deletion of Death of Mark Duggan

Comment: as the direct cause of the 2011 England riots, but completely separate - as an event - from them, this article more that satisfies , and there is no reason for it to not exist. People need to kneejerk a little less, and read sources a little more
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I consider this article PASSES  given the "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", as with Howard Brennan
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Independent coverage of the event is substantial and the fact that his death has been said to have at least partially instigated a larger riot makes this event well beyond a |run-of-the-mill |shooting and subsequent death.  What harm is being done to Wikipedia by keeping this article?  None that I can perceive through these policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:EVENT)

Comment: to 2011 London riots.  Non notable alledged criminal and drug addict who shot by police.   and .  Notability is not inherited from the riots.  If a catalyst for the riots, then should be mentioned in that article.  Does not have independent notability for his own article.--v/r
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIME)

Comment: Redirect to the riots article. If not, delete. Duggan was a non-notable person who got killed, so his chances of rising beyond  are nil
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Was going to suggest move, but someone has been |bold and already did it. Article under its current title is notable as being the trigger for the London 2011 riots
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD)

Comment: When this debate began, the article in question was a biography of the man who was killed.  I recommended deleting it then.  In only a few hours, it has been renamed several times, and is now evolving into an article about the circumstances of his death and the controversy about it.  In other words, the article we were debating at the beginning has been fundamentally changed into something else.  The two articles mentioned by AnonMoos above represent the direction this article should head if it is to be kept.  It shouldn't be a  - those two articles aren't
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: to 2011 England riots. Classic  situation. The article doesn't even have a single ref that's not specifically about the shooting. Yes, the death is tragic, but it's only notable in relation the riots it sparked. Rodney King is not comparable as he continued to be a public figure long after the riots he sparked.. Special:Contributions/108.67.153.215|108.67.153.215
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: and merge to the article on the riots. Clear , not notable for anything other than being shot
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO1E)

Comment:  states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". In fact after reading this policy it seems to me this article is entirely appropriate given the '''huge''' magnitude of the event, and the apparently (at the moment) major role this person has played in said event. For example, Howard Brennan was not one of the central characters in that major event and is not notable for anything else, but he has a separate article and is cited in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Let's end this debate now under . It's embarrassing for Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Please note that  alone does not yet settle whether a separate article should exist about a person notable for one event -- the relevant criterion is significance of the event and significance of the person in question for the event. I argue that a) the event is obviously significant, and b) (the death of) Mark Duggan, at least according to our current knowledge, appears to be a major factor in causing/igniting the event; therefore keeping a separate article is justified
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: the article is still  by another name
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I want to make clear that this is not a  rationale, because it would hold true even if the rioting stops right now. The riots article is of a quite significant size already, is likely to grow unless all disorder stops now, and I would expect the aftermath to eventually add another 20-30% to its size. Furthermore, if this is merged into the riots article, I would expect the section on Duggan's death to grow dramatically as the facts of the case are unearthed. I'm on the fence as to whether the event itself was notable, but in practise this is a logical split to what is unquestionably going to become a very large article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)