Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimveer Gill

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 and redirect to Dawson College shooting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimveer Gill

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not really seeing anything that would stand out and warrant this guy having any article separate from the shooting he committed. In fact, a cursory comparative analysis indicates this article mostly repeats what's already been written on the Dawson College shooting article. If there is anything new in this article that is not mentioned in the shooting article, it can be merged there. Love of Corey (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources in the article cover the subject very well, and they are not passing mentions. I don't think deletion is necessary, but Mr. Gill's article could be expanded. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 07:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about this article not being covered well by sources; it's about this article being redundant in the face of the Dawson College shooting. What could be mentioned here that cannot be mentioned in the shooting article itself? I can't imagine there being a trove of unique information that could separate this from the shooting article. Love of Corey (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: WP:BIO1E is the relevant policy; The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. There is nothing exceptional about this case, and indeed the biography is a pointless content-fork of the shooting article, with all biographical details focused around the crime. --JBL (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2020 (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.