Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan


 * 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 Snowball Keep. There is absolutely no chance that this article is going to be anything other than kept, at least in the coming days. To save adminisrators work, and to stop Wikipedia from being brought into disrepute, I am performing a non-admin closure. Egg Centric 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Mark Duggan
(article moved several times since AfD began)
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am proposing this article for deletion because I don't think it really adds anything to the encyclopedia. I think it would be better if the page redirected to 2011 London riots 5 albert square (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The riots have the potential to become historic and notable. I see you acknowledge this by agreeing to have an article on the riots. In similar case, we have also subarticles on the persons who were somehow the case of the riots. Why do you wish to follow a different approach here? T om ea s y T C 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the riots themselves have the potential to become notable. However I still don't see that there is anything covered in Mark Duggan's article that isn't or couldn't be covered in the London Riots article.  My opinion is we only need the London Riots article here, it's them that's gaining notability because they're so widespread.  Perhaps they could be merged then, like the Cumbria shootings and Derrick Bird were.  --5 albert square (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's the first place I've found a sensible event to spark this wave of rioting, all the rest has been gloss, as the triggering event it is of note in its own right; keep editing and improving it, nothing else has indicated a sensivbile source for the riots; but right wing death squads on the streets as this article indicates are a sensible clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.201.107 (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete until anything warranting an article is available - everything is covered by the 2011 London riots article. violet/riga [talk] 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm satisfied that the article has grown sufficiently and hope that editors remember to keep the information here rather than in the riots article. violet/riga [talk] 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I hold that the riots themselves warrant inclusion, similarly to the article on Rodney King, who would not have been notable without the riots that followed his death abuse. T om ea s y T C 21:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rodney King is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.150.166 (talk • contribs)
 * What does this imply? Does it make him more notable? The only difference I see is that the LA riots are probably more notable? Duggan dead, King alive is not really an argument either way (in- or exclusion). T om ea s y T C 21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Was I the first one who tried an article on this person? Have there already been AfD discussions on this? T om ea s y T C 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Please not the dab page Mark Duggan which probably receives quite some hits at the moment. Does it make sense to have an individual listed on a dab page but not wanting an article? That's how I came by it. T om ea s y T C 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. People who spark major events gain notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that this article should remain as it will be of interest to the public, the london riots should be kept seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightower25 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 August 2011
 * I believe it should be merged with the riots article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.150.166 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 August 2011
 * Redirect to 2011 London riots. This is a classic case of someone known for just one event. It is not at all comparable to Rodney King because Mr. King did not die, stayed in the news for years, and was covered in great detail by countless reliable sources in the context of many events - his original beating, reactions to the video of his beating, the trial of the policemen who beat him, the riots that followed the verdicts, his own statements trying to calm the violence, the aftermath of the riots and so on.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK that is an argument which makes sense. Are we not to have articles on persons who are just known for one event? What if this one event is truly noteworthy?
 * I expect there will be a large amount of interest from our readers in the personal details of this individual. T om ea s y T C 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that a redirect is probably not worthwhile - Mark Duggan is a dab page linking to the riot article and this has the title of "Tottenham riots". violet/riga [talk] 21:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As for disambiguation, all we need is a hat note at the top of the article about the footballer, saying something like, "For the taxi driver Mark Duggan whose death triggered violence, see 2011 London riots.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certainly appropriate, in my opinion, to have an article on the worst riots in London in decades. It is appropriate to have a section in that article about the shooting that triggered the riots.  That section should include a few sentences on the man who was killed.  But our policies discourage separate biographical articles about otherwise non-notable people who get a brief flurry of press attention only because they were caught up in a notable event such as this shooting and the riots that followed.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I could live with this reasoning and decision. However, do you not think that many readers will look for personal information on this individual? If Mark Duggan gets many hits, would that not be reason to have such an article? T om ea s y T C 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are here to build an encyclopedia with article on topics of enduring notability, rather than to satisfy short term curiosity. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper - there are plenty of them around, even if a well-known one closed down recently.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we are here to build an encyclopedia? Did not know that. Thanks for the reminder. Nevertheless, I think that one can very well agree on the purpose of this project, while still having different positions on the inclusion of a certain topic. T om ea s y T C 21:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We can come to an agreement, or we can agree to disagree. I am not saying your opinion has no validity, but rather that I believe my opinion in this matter has a better basis in established policy and guidelines for this project than yours.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may certainly believe that, but argument from authority isn't terribly convincing. Let's get back to the issue itself; it is whether this man, since he is notable only for one incident, is sufficiently notable to have a page. The policy on people notable for only one event does not indicate that all such articles should be deleted, it says it is "unclear", and gives the example of someone who is a small player in a large event, or a large player in a small event. Duggan is neither - he is the most-often cited cause of a large event. Whether he is actually the logical cause is not relevant; his death is famously cited as the cause.

We do not have crystal balls, but this event is the direct cause, but a separate event, from the 2011 England riots. As such, there is already independent notability established, for example the preliminary (and controversial) investigation on the part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. All evidence points to this event being notable in itself, in particular, the long-term resolution of the investigation into this death will be a notable event, which will affect the views on the other notable event, the riots. If we are wrong, we can then in the future merge it into the riots, but based on the current evidence, not crystal ball predictions, I highly doubt this event is not notable enough for its own article.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEVENT is only valid in that the article is about the person's death, not the person himself. --Trevj (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Definite delete. Person is not notable for anything other than being a drug dealer shot by police, hardly worthy of an encyclopedia article and even if there was some minor justification for it, it would be moved in the main riot article. --TBM10 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I came to Wikipedia looking up his name rather than a nomenclature for the London/Tottenham riots that would be unguessable. It is also likely that there will be an enquiry (or two or three, knowing how these things play out) into his shooting, and that will all need somewhere to go. As further details emerge, it would be useful to have a place to put them. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * David - that is not necessary as his name will become a redirect if his article is deleted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So.. basically, he isn't notable at this point and the article should be deleted? Cheers. Nevard (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

violet/riga [talk] 22:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per DavidFarmbrough's argument  R uby2010   comment!  22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We may very well come to a time when the subject of this article is more notable, and warrants a separate article (as is the case with Rodney King and Rodney King Riots -- you'll notice that second link is a redirect, a great little tool that I'm sure will be implemented if this article is deleted, which I hope will help alleviate the concerns of the person above who searched for the man not the riot.) As it is, everything in this article can fit just fine into the article on the riot. The mere possibility of there being more to add later does not seem like a valid reason to keep it now. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that as the article currently stands the only information it includes that is not already adeptly covered by the main article is about his wife and kids. I'm tempted to delete it based on BLP.
 * You do know what the L in BLP stands for? Joepnl (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

— 82.28.239.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The event alone is notable; similar events are covered with a Wikipedia article in a likewise manner. The 2011 London riots page should be an article solely on the riots, whilst the Mark Duggan incident should be covered in a separate page. Richard n  23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG. There is insufficient unique content for a spinout article. Subject is covered adequately in 2011 London riots. WWGB (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The sheer number of mentions that Duggan is getting in the mainstream media as man whose death was the catalyst for major civil disorder (which is ongoing as we type) demonstrates the subject is notable now! ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Stop trying to cover this mans death up. Keep so everyone can get a summary of why the riots even started! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.239.195 (talk • contribs)
 * Strong keep We had to go through this with immolations in Tunisia, then with Egypt, then .... People want something to refer to and contribute to while news is going on. Not until later on is it possible to get adequate perspective; in the meantime the documentation is very thorough. Twang (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge with the article on the riots - not really notable on his own, purely for being the catalyst of some riots. &mdash; Joseph Fox 00:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DavidFarmbrough. The article has been correctly (IMO) moved to the Death of Mark Duggan as an event, it's not about the person Mark Duggan which would fall under BIO1E. It's a notable event; the article for which will be fleshed out as more background and explanation becomes available (as with the Death of Jean Charles de Menezes) - AL LOCKE | talk  00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 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. Acebulf (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously this man is notable and people will want to know about him. Joepnl (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he is not notable, any more than any of the other "333 people who died in British police custody", according to the 2011 London riots, are notable. Being a putative (and dubious) victim does not make anyone notable, per se. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)  16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello? In case anyone noticed there are a few fires across London because of him. I wanted to know who he was, and what the circumstances were. Totally notable. History2007 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep under current title Death of Mark Duggan -- The legal fallout will almost certainly drag on for many years in various forms (as with many other comparable British incidents), with much media coverage along the way. Much more information will be released on the incident, beginning with certain forensic results promised within hours, so it seems pointless to delete the article right at this moment. The "2011 London riots" article is not the place to cover the details of Duggan's death (which happened several days before the riots began). AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. We have an article Death of Jean Charles de Menezes which is strongly analogous... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Death of Ian Tomlinson etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:BIO1E - those two articles aren't.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete. Redirect to the riots article. If not, delete. Duggan was a non-notable person who got killed, so his chances of rising beyond WP:ONEEVENT are nil. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:ONEEVENT : "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The event (major riots that have spread to at least two other cities) is significant. The subject (shooting of man by police is generally agreed to have sparked said riots) is a large role within the event. Therefore, this article should be kept. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quoting something I didn't need quoted. I've read ONEEVENT, I don't agree with your interpretation. It even goes on to point out how individuals involved in an event often become a redirect to the article about the event, which is exactly what I'm saying to do. I don't see where this drug dealing gang member was notable on his own. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I question whether Duggan's role was "a large one". He just took a bullet. WWGB (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about his death and the ramifications, not a biography of the man himself. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 03:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was one bullet that started WW1. Agathoclea (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. More information will be published about Duggan's background as the press try to make sense of it, not to mention the IPCC inquiry pending. Also, from what I've read, the last 2 of the 3 days of violence have little to do with the death. — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep under current title as per AnonMoos' opinion.  The Toxic Mite  't 04:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect. This is the clearest example possible of a person known for single event; getting killed by the police. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" here, the closing admin should ignore all of these keep voters as they are 100% wrong. Speciate (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable event triggering a notable riot and deserves its own article. User:Towel401 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.12 (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2011 London riots and redirect. Fails WP:ONEEVENT. Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2011 London riots. Leaving aside the lack of notability, there is no content in this article that isn't in that article. Nevard (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep under current title - Clearly notable death, not to mention similar articles. ( G a b i n h o >:) 06:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Merge and redirect Because everything in this article also belongs in 2011 London Riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.197.99 (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but broaden into an article about the background to the rioting. There are already a few articles about this in reliable sources and it's inconceivable that there will not be more. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I gaze into my crystal ball, I suspect the man will be referenced slightly outside the context of the riots, especially as investigations into his death continue. That would probably end up in this article and not the 2011 London Riots. Outside the crystal ball, I think the ONEEVENT guideline is being interpreted a little too strictly, since arguably he was both killed which also created a riot. They're connected, but separate in importance. Victims of police brutality usually don't have an article, but then that brutality usually doesn't lead riots (see Rodney King). Xavexgoem (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This killing brings to the fore the long-running issue of alleged racism in the British police forces and will be highlighted again by the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. ARK (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Duggan's death notable due to circumstances (killed by police) and also as causation for the 2011 London riots. Gfcvoice
 * WP:BLP1E does not apply, as the article is about the death of Mark Duggan, rather than being about Mark Duggan. Even if the riots had not occurred, the circumstances of his death (killed by police) are notable. Gfcvoice (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Duggan's death WAS NOT "causation for the 2011 London riots"; the peaceful protest regarding his shooting was hijacked by the thugs and rioters as an excuse to loot and destroy property. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

— 99.224.44.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Compare Blair Peach. Biscuittin (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per User Biscuittin. Adrian (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep His death is a watershed incident in UK history. And surely more information regarding the circumstances of his death will emerge as time passes by. Astronomyinertia (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps then we should have an article on the policeman who shot him? After all, it was he who sparked the riot, right? Speciate (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article is still WP:BLP1E by another name. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Definite delete Duggan's unfortunate death would probably have resulted in hardly a mention on Wikipedia had it not been for the subsequent riots. The contents of this article should be merged into 2011 London riots, with a redirect to that article. Davshul (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? The death of Jean Charles de Menezes etc. has quite a bit more than a mere "mention", despite not triggering any riots... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E 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 WP:BLP1E. C 1 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep' WP:BLP1E allows articles on people notable for only one event if the event is very important and the person had a large role in it, and says that the indicator of importance is how persistent coverage of the event is in reliable sources. The riots resulting from his death are an important event and given the riots and the various investigations into the shooting there is likely to be lots of coverage for some time. Since BLP1E arguably doesn't apply anyway (the subject is dead) and since the article is about the person's death rather than the person I think the existence of this page as a seperate article can be justified. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 10:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep' His death is a significant incident in UK history. 20040302 (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is clearly a need for a seperate page to deal with this man's death and the circumstances around it, as well as adding on more information, as new details come to light. And especially if it is proven that he was murdered in cold blood. The even is significant enough in itself. We should not forget why we should be angry and even though I do not agree with rioting and burning buildings, they display how all of us feel. Milka5000 12:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.133 (talk)
 * With respect, personal opinions on the incident are not being discussed and shouldn't be brought to Wikipedia (see Neutral point of view). Your main point, that the article subject is very significant, is certainly true and valid. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge' to 2011 London riots. There is nothing that is keepable in this article for it to have its own article here, all of written there can be merged into that proposed merge article. Donnie Park (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge Redirect it to the section in the 2011 London riots page, move some of the materials from here to there. Recreate the page in the future if more solid information come out.Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Weak Keep Scratch that. After reading some comments below, I now believe that it should be kept, as an individual and notable event (albeit far less than the riots but nevertheless notable) of police shooting a man (self-defence or not). Also, the friend and relative peaceful protest too. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 12:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm British and a long term Canadian. In three days our news vehicles(CTV and CBC) have not reported anything to do with the reasons for rioting except that the police shot someone. I looked up the images of rioting on Flickr.com, and found the victims' name. Searching the name Mark Duggan led to BBC news online and subsequently to the reason that Mark Duggan was shot, news of police misapprehension, and also to a humanizing description of the family relationships for the deceased (although the still born child is certainly family business and not ours). I agree with Tomeasy, that these aspects of societal malaise have fulminated into an event with the potential to become historic. In Criminology studies, researchers would look for stats on the reasons for violent rioters actions, and go for any aspect that suggests the exploitation of the victims' dilemma or of peaceful protest. News circuits do not express the idea that Duggan was a drug dealer, nor that he was a College student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.44.180 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to 2011 London riots as thoroughly non-notable small time criminal. If he gets a page anyone killed by the police under any circumstances will merit their own page Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - revisit this question in six months when we have the perspective of time. There is no urgency to remove the article for now.  There is notability here, the article is referenced, there is no need to remove it.  When things have settled down a little, we'll know better whether this persons' death is truly worthy of a separate article or whether this was merely a footnote to a greater whole.  When the rioting is over and some serious investigation into his death has been undertaken, we may decide whether there is continuing notability. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2011 London riots. Non notable alledged criminal and drug addict who shot by police.  WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME.  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 - TP 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2011 London riots. Louis Wu (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per TP, Anything relevent about the death can go in the 2011 London riots - the looting and riots have little to do with his Duggan anyway, I doubt many of them can even name him. He's just a dead criminal, and thus as a stand alone he is non-notable. The idea that in a few months he may still be spoken about is in violation of WP:Crystal. BulbaThor (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As stated above, his only notability is re: the riots, and any information about him can go in the main article.--Chimino (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Please note that WP:BLP1E 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.
 * Also note the similarity to Mohamed Bouazizi and his role in the Arab Spring -- like Mark Duggan he is notable only because of one event, his self-immolation, but his significance for the event and the overall significance of the event justified maintaining a separate article. Minvogt (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no similarity between Bouazizi and Duggan. Bouazizi died by his own hand in self-sacrifice; he was not a drug dealing, lowlife thug. To compare them is sickening. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You kind of miss the point: IMO they are (or appear to be) similar in their significance for an important event, i.e. they were the catalyst for something big that happened after their death. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but I'm not sure if that would have made a difference for you, as you seem to have pretty strong opinions about this issue anyway ("...drug dealing, lowlife thug."). Minvogt (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is way off topic. We're not discussing our personal opinions of Mark Duggan here. Despising the subject of an article is hardly a reason for deletion. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 16:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's end this debate now under WP:SNOW. It's embarrassing for Wikipedia. --EddieBernard (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The IPCC has confirmed that there is no evidence that Duggan shot at the police. The death of Mark Duggan is a story that's going to run. ARK (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW as merge and redirect? Seriously, there is quite a split and there really are better ways of making your point than how you just did. And for those voting Keep I'd like to know what content is actually in this article that isn't already in 2011 London riots.  I fully expect this to become an article in the future but right now it's a needless duplication with few people helping out (to add to it or remove vandalism).  violet/riga [talk] 17:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. It's pretty obvious just by the amount of discussion that this is a controversial matter, and controversial matters are considered important in this day and age, not to mention it is very notable that this man (having in a sense caused the riots) is linked directly to the 2011 London riots... Just make a section with a header called "Death of Mark Duggan" in the 2011 London Riots article and be done with it. L.C.E.C. (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Im not from UK, but im interested on info about this riot, i consider ignorance and stupidity the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apatuka (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)  — Apatuka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There would appear to be confusion here - the riot article is at 2011 England riots, this is just the tiny bit of duplication from that article. violet/riga [talk] 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. merge with london riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.236.124 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)  — 78.145.236.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The above user has precisely two edits, both of which are demanding a merger of this article. I like to WP:AGF so I'm wondering if that user has perhaps forgetfully commented again on this AFD after accidentally logging out of their regular account? <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the other edit is a comment on the talk page of the article and they then came here - it is not a second vote within this AfD. violet/riga [talk] 20:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable and has received media coverage. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. An example of deletionism at its silliest. Moncrief (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; events like this, which spark rioting and are widely covered by media, are clearly notable topics. dalahäst (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep; How can this be called "non-notable" when it's been on global news? SalfEnergy 22:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs)
 * Keep notable, no article policies violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. The often-cited comparison with Rodney King goes awry, since there was a courtcase and some famous televised appearances ("Can't we all just get along?"). This is one single event that is supposed to make the person notable--but it's not really about the person. A redirect is fine, of course, and I guess I could live with a merge as well. But an independent article, no. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. Merge with the 2011 London Riots rather than keep as a second, separate article. I think most, if not all of the information on this page needs to be part of the riot article, perhaps under the "Causes" section.  The argument is not "should we delete it?" but "Does notability of the subject (Mark Druggan) exist without the existence of the riots?" RandomAct(talk to me) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Lachlanusername (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Don't see why a person who got shot down by the police needs to have his own Wikipedia article, considering he was not known at all and only caused a minor peaceful demonstration. The major riots have nothing to do with him directly. Therefore delete.--92.21.26.107 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 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.  <b style="color:green; font-family:Corbel;">I, Jethrobot</b> drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep with no prejudice to renomination after the riots have finished. Sceptre (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the valid reason to renominate for deletion later (if the article is kept for now) would be if the Duggan shooting matter is resolved legally very quickly and painlessly, without any inquests or significant implications for police-community relations in Britain. I consider this to be rather improbable, but it might possibly happen... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This article adds nothing to the encyclopaedia that isn't already contained in the 2011 England riots article.--Life in General (Talk) 23:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - for the time being, it seems easier to me to deal with the matters relating to this death in a separate article. It doesn't harm anyone or violate any of our policies, and it takes pressure off the main article. The long-term notability of Mark Duggan can be re-assessed after the riots have stopped and the story seems to have finished; if there turns out to be little more to say about him, I wouldn't object to a merge then. Robofish (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect and Merge into a section on the 2011 British Riots -that way people searching only his name will find the article on the rioting. The individual himself is not noteworthy as a petty criminal that drew-down on the police and lost -something that occurs daily. GenQuest (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I want to make clear that this is not a WP:CRYSTAL 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. —WFC— TFL notices 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. WP:CRYSTAL applies to the tone of the article itself. We, as (hopefully) rational-minded, logical human beings can look at the riots and say "Yeah, this is fucking huge news and will be remembered and written about for quite some time and when the causes are brought up, Duggan's death will be mentioned". That isn't "a violation of WP:CRYSTAL", that's us making a reasonable prediction based on available evidence. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge into a section on 2011 England riots ; as User:GenQuest. Necrid Master (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason for deleting the article is not strong and has no supporting rationale or policy violations. The death of this man is what caused the London riots, that is very notable for inclusion on wikipedia. ScienceApe (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think the article about the riots should have many details about the death of Duggan, because the details of Duggan's death are not particularly relevant to the riots.  That said, the details of Duggan's death are notable in their own respect.  If you want to merge and redirect, a more appropriate merge and redirect would be to Operation Trident (Metropolitan Police).  173.65.30.236 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are they notable? Just because he got shot? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentNotable because he was shot was police, and died as a result. One would assume that London police don't randomly kill civilians every day of the year. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please spare us the strawman, Drmies. The incident is notable because it is a "controversial death in an incident involving the police" and "there are serious doubts about the integrity of the initial reports of the incident by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)".   According to Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom (which would be another potential merge and redirect target, should the article not be meaty enough to stand on its own), over a 12 year period, "30 people had been shot dead by police".  This is much more notable than a mere matter of "someone got shot". 173.65.30.236 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Spare us the false rhetoric about the strawman, 173. Not everyone who gets shot by the police is notable, not even in the UK. It's not the death itself that is notable, and that is plain to see--only the aftermath has brought us here. In the case of James Ashley, for instance, there are circumstances surrounding the shooting that make for notability, perhaps. In the case of de Menezes, that's without a doubt. Not so here. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually he's right, you did make a strawman logical fallacy. ScienceApe (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, for the record, I am saying that every instance where someone gets shot and killed by the UK police under controversial circumstances, is notable. 173.65.30.236 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article on the man would be notable at this point, and since he's really only notable for this event, the article seems fairly titled. Trevyn (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The whole article is about the riot, and Mark Duggan would not have any notability unless talking about this.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Even had not the riots occurred, the detail now emerging about the shooting would undoubtedly put it into the "controversial" category. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with the London Riots page. He is not notable except as the catalyst for the riots. HonkyTonkHarlot (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now there may be, down the line, a clearer indication of notability, but for now in the current climate it seems like it will be a notable topic. We can always readdress as needed. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge. There is no significance to the death of this individual other than being the spark that began the riots. He could be much better covered on the main article.  Kinaro (say hello) (what's been done) 09:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks to me like a snowball keep judging by the above. In a few months time, when the riots have settled down and the IPCC have reported, some other re-organisation of the material may seem more appropriate and can be considered then, but, for now, there's plenty of coverage specific to this article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least for now - as Bondegezou says. After the events, some condensing of material would be good, but as things unfold so quickly, it doesn't seem helpful to delete. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - obvious keep, this persons death sparked these riots.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The volume of interest in this AfD alone proves that there is notability to this person,not only the event that followed this persons death.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no it doesn't prove that at all. It just shows that a lot of people feel very passionately about the issue for some reason. Your Lord and Master (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This article contains a substantial risk of serious prejudice in the event of any criminial case arising in connection with the death of Mark Duggan and should be deleted in its entirity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.180.68 (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely untrue as long as WP:NPOV is adhered to. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Editor ARK in their comment above says: "This killing brings to the fore the long-running issue of alleged racism in the British police forces..." This is the first suggestion I have seen that Duggan was of a different race than the police who shot him. This puts a "different perspective" on the ensuing riots. Is there some hesitation to raise the point in 2011 England riots and in Death of Mark Duggan? Wanderer57 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because no reliable media has raised race as an issue. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Community organizers, neighborhood residents and members of Parliament who represent the districts, including several who, like Mr. Duggan, were of Afro-Caribbean descent, have said, overwhelmingly, that his death, while providing the original trigger for the violence, has had little or nothing to do with the looting and arson." from today's New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/world/europe/11britain.html?smid=fb-nytimes&pagewanted=all  (I'm just leaving this here as I don't have time to work on the articles.) Wanderer57 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP under current title of Death of Mark Duggan - it is a notable event and it is in the public interest to keep it. Also, WP:STEAM --AndrewTindall (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge with 2011 England riots, person lacks notability, event is significant, but significant to London Riots. Rodney King has an article, but that is because his notoriety has grown beyond the LA Riots, Notice Reginald Denny does not have an article.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reginald Denny does have an article: Reginald_Denny incident. AdamSommerton (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into 2011 England riots. I'm not so much opposed to it being merged into the larger article, but I wouldn't like it to just be redirected without the content being transferred as well. Mnmazur (talk)
 * KEEP - there are many arguments above that Duggan was not a worthy individual. That's really not the point. His death is controversial, and will lead to high-level public enquiries; particularly because it is the most-cited cause of the London Riots, but also because it was an organised public shooting by police of an unarmed man in a first-world country. There will be a lot of further coverage of his death and the subsequent enquiries. It is already known across the world, and is likely to be the subject of further front-page news stories and detailed investigative articles. To merge it into an already complicated article on the riots that his death sparked would make it harder to keep the facts of this notable incident in order.
 * Keep - this is an important and ongoing issue. If it's to be deleted, that discussion should take place after the dust has settled. Foobard (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The proposed deletion seems to fit under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but also because the topic is inherently notable (based on the number of references and the scale of the topic). 2.124.42.95 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the direct cause of the 2011 England riots, but completely separate - as an event - from them, this article more that satisfies WP:GNG, and there is no reason for it to not exist. People need to kneejerk a little less, and read sources a little more. --Cerejota (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this article can be kept then so can this article. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The death of Mark Duggan, while being the initial spark that started the riots (and thus notable), should not be simply redirected to the 2011 England riots article. For one thing, one unfortunate killing of a civilian by a police force is hardly a precedence for widespread destruction (which isn't even particularly targeted at the police). As such, while this person's unfortunate death certainly deserves to be mentioned in the main riots article, it shouldn't go into excessive detail as not all of the information relating to Mark Duggan's death is relevant to that article. Rather, Mark Duggan's death is a separate event, which gets most of its notability from a subsequent event, but is notable nonetheless, and separating the two events across two articles is both the cleanest and the most informative way to put these recent events into article format. 81.82.98.2 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent point. For example, Duggan's inquest will be important to the article about his death but totally irrelevant to the article about the riots. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 23:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It sure is, but the inquest is not until 12 December! violet/riga [talk] 07:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I was giving a random example of the validity (IMO) of the user's suggestion for the future of the article rather than claiming that was why the article should not be deleted. By the way, thanks for your rewording on the box at the top, it was a definite improvement. Users seem to have stopped making the WP:BLP mistake since it's been in place. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 09:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The person was the initial point and still remains pivotal to the whole protests and riots. Other articles with similar situation have dedicated pages for characters/victims eg. Jeffrey Miller, so should this one. Deleting this will not help understanding the main article and a merge will only make an already big article bigger. --182.185.50.106 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for God's sake. This is a dumb debate and was probably started by someone upset with the events over the past few days. END THIS. 98.223.65.209 (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I consider this article PASSES WP:BLP1E given the "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", as with Howard Brennan. -- Calrion (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I dont know why would you propose such a significant article for deletion. Of course it adds to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.90.212 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the catalyst for the riots, his death is an entirely separate event. As time goes on, more information about the death will come to light and this article will become more significant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.226.159 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:EFFECT --Trevj (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - in my mother's language (i.e. german) the Death of Mark Duggan makes me thinking of a 'spark' that would bring a barrel of powder to an explosion; (cf. forum entry of dict.leo.org) i.a.w. the article refers to an event that caused a volatile situation to quickly get into an historic situation - as beeing a spark in currents history, the rather instant memory of the article should be maintained. thank you for your kind attention shryber --Shryber (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)(CEST)
 * Merge. This info belongs in the London Riots article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 12:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily satisfies notability requirements. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable subject with good reliable sources. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Event seperate from the ongoing riots / causal / and well documented therefor fits WP:GNG Agathoclea (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to Mark Duggan and convert to a biography. For consistency. Kirils (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to 2011 England riots. Duggan is apparently notable only for his death leading to rioting, so there's no reason to maintain a biography/memorial on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The riots are the bigger story but these are two separate events. The shooting will have legal ramifications of its own in addition to the riots. It's because of the riots that Duggan's death became notable. That notability will make the legal proceedings afterward more high profile than they would have been. The death and the riots are linked but not identical events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellabaker (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion would be clear censorship. The riots and the death are two separate issues. 86.162.80.125 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 86.162.80.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Redirect and merge to the article on the riots. Clear WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E, not notable for anything other than being shot.  Chzz  ► 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why is this person's death so important? We'd all like to learn about it! Keep it. And, REMOVE the huge "proposed for deletion" tag in the article please. -  Niri M / ನಿರಿ  17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is clearly a notable event, independently from the riots that followed it. Duggan's death raises major issues about police firearms policy, and this was already the subject of extensive news coverage even before the riots had started. -- The Anome (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Most of the discussion above is irrelevant anyway because it is focused on Mark Duggan's notability as a person. This article is about a crime that sparked a protest and tremendous riots in the UK. It is important to/but separate from the riots article itself. The police investigation and any court proceedings will also be pertinent to this article, but not needed for the riots article. I would also point out that there is an article on Catherine_O'Leary famous for her cow starting the Great Chicago Fire. Surely the death of Mr Duggan is equally important. --Charlesroth (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * strong keep - clearly notable incident, and a useful article in itself William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect to 2011 England riots. Subject in question is notable only for his death leading to rioting. The article is nothing more than a "memorial page" on Wikipedia.


 * Merge & Redirect to 2011 England riots. Classic WP:BLP1E 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.. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the merge & redirect proponents take a look at the Death of Jean Charles de Menezes and Death of Ian Tomlinson articles. It is reasonable to assume that the Death of Mark Duggan will become an issue of very similar proportions. This isn't about the 2011 England Riots, it's about the police. ARK (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the Mrs. O'Leary's Cows, Rodney Kings, and Mark David Chapmans of the world, whose presence as catalysts of major events rendered notability. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets the standards of notability. There are numerous articles relating to deaths (accidental or otherwise) that received less coverage than this has and will do. In addition to being notable now, it is likely to gain even greater significance independently from the riots due the subsequent investigations. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Mark Duggan's death ignited a huge riot, he's much more than just a drug dealer who just got shot. (User talk: Annj87) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Neutral One idea i had, is that maybe we can cut the size of the article down a little bit and merge whats left to 2011 England Riots. Just a middle of the road plan. Dusty777 (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm glad to see that the article title was changed to "Death of Mark Duggan": thanks, editors. This means that the POV I presented was not the only one. My main argument is that this death and the investigation that will follow have a separate public, theme and pace from the one on the London Riots. I'm enchanted by the change of the name: what's notable is not Mr. Duggan biography, what's notable is the event of his death notable because the police lied about he shooting them (at least we have press reports about that). If he had drawn a gun, shoot at police and then he had been shoot back, the article would not be notable. When the UK Police, which most people (I think, at least I do) around the world respect for their famous restraint about using guns lie about a person shooting at them, I want to know what the UK justice does about that. This can lead even to changes in the way UK police handles this kind of incidents. The riots are barely related to this theme. The riots will be over soon (hopefully). The investigation will drag for a long time.Ciroa (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - can both keep and delete !vs that talk about BLP1E explain who is the living person here? I just don't see how BLP1E applies to a dead person. I try to warp my head about it and come out blank. Maybe something is wrong with me, but I simply do not see it.--Cerejota (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I can only assume that people are not reading the text near the top of this page "please note that this article is about an event, not a biography" Gfcvoice (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Police killings are notable. This event triggered insurrection, riots, looting, and a total breakdown of law and order for a short time. As an event that triggered such serious events it should be kept. Unixtastic (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Police killings that trigger massive riots in London are probably notable. Good grief. Can we close as keep via WP:SNOW? --Pstanton (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; Some of the arguments favoring deletion express the attitude this death is unimportant because Mark Duggan "was a drug dealer", a "known criminal." BUT what evidence is there supporting the allegation?  Wouldn't the "known criminal" tag come from the police?  The police allegedly shot and killed Mark Duggan.  The police have been caught lying about details of this case.  How do we know Mark Duggan was really even armed?  The fact remains, even if Mark Duggan was a drug dealer, this is not a capital offense in the U.K .  The evident bias shown by these assumptions is certainly anything but neutral.  Although cited as the precipitating factor for the riots, Mark Duggan's death is a separate incident from the riots, notable in and of itself, and which will continue to play out over time.   It is incredible to me that this argument rages on, now approaching 10,000 words in response to an article currently standing at a little over 1,000 words.  In and of itself, this discussion is indicative of the incident's notability.  If this much interest doesn't indicate notability, I can't imagine what would. Laurel L. Russwurm (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Laurelrusswurm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This article is a shrine for a thug whose family is seeking damages from Scotland Yard for doing their job, namely putting gun carrying criminals behind bars. Take it off ! — 81.243.119.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:58, 12 August 2011] (UTC).
 * The riots are notable, agreed, but the death of Mr. Duggan is also notable. I would suggest to do the same that was done in Menezes case: there is no biography of him but an article on his death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes So, I say, let the article stand, but change its name to "Death of Mark Duggan". That is what is notable, not Mr. Duggan per se. It is so notable that it unleashed a riot unheard of in the UK! The cause of his death and the research into it that will follow surely deserves a separate article. One thing is the riot, a different one is the circumstances surrounding this death and the investigation that will follow. There is the slim connection between them (from an encyclopedic point of view): the riots will be over in a matter of days or weeks, while the investigation will carry on for months or years. Similarly, for example, the Death of Marat deserves an article, different from The Terror. Same policy goes with Rodney King (his biography is incuded in Wikipedia because he was beaten, so the beat and the investigation and trial that followed have an article) while the L.A. riots have their own entry. Ciroa (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Police killings in countries where that is not the norm are very notable. This one directly trigged large scale social unrest so it is highly notable. Unixtastic (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep the article, for the sake of honesty, clarity and transparency. don't try to hide or minimize uncomfortable truths. it's interesting and it stands in line with other relevant victims of police violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)  — Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Mark Duggan's death is of major individual importance aside from the riots, esp. now as it is under investigation and new evidence is seeming to point to a possible police blunder (http://voice-online.co.uk/article/new-witnesses-duggan-police-shooting-says-ipcc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.112.224 (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability has already been established (see also Rodney King for a similar event). Zerbey (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This keep/delete/merge discussion is now more than 5 times as long as the article it is about. What does it take to end this controversy and move on to more productive work? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.