Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norasharee Gous

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 keep. Consensus seems to that the individual convincingly satisfies WP:GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norasharee Gous[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Nothing in the article indicates he was some outstanding drug dealer or that there was a miscarriage of justice / wrongful conviction. The surrounding media circus essentially boils down to the fact that some people and organizations disagree with capital punishment for drug offenses, but presently capital punishment for drug trafficking is applied in at least 33 countries, so hardly every single convict warrants an article in that regard. Brandmeister^talk 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Brandmeister^talk 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom, this appears routine, in Singapore at least. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do not think his article should be deleted. His case was covered by the media over a certain range of years and he even gained international attention. It does not necessarily mean a case without lost-lasting effects should be deleted since from the POV of the international groups, his case was to show the alleged ineffectiveness of the death penalty against drugs.--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's obvious that NelsonLee20042020 is some sort of anti death penalty activist putting his biased spin on every wikipedia he touch. This criminal is not even notable and most people didn't even know about his case. This article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not make baseless accusations against other editors. Should also be noted that this user has made little edits to the site outside this topic in the past year. Inexpiable (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me, sorry. I am actually one who absolutely support the death penalty without objection. I do not have any agenda at all, but it was due to my interest in this topic and that's why I create articles of death row inmates, their cases are interesting. Mostly my editing stance is neutral and kind of leaning towards the support for capital punishment. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Executions in Singapore are controversial and now more notable as they are not frequent, especially as it was for drug trafficking and not murder. The subject is receiving widespread and international coverage across the globe, including in the United Kingdom and the United States: [1], [2] Inexpiable (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks more like WP:RECENTISM. In the absence of wrongful conviction it's unclear why out of dozens countries who execute for drug offenses Singapore is singled out. A popular call for criminal justice reform would be more useful instead. Brandmeister^talk 16:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then should you say the same thing about Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam when it was also being paid attention to days before his execution. Although it may be a different extent compared to Kalwant, but think about it, the whole world singled out Singapore specifically due to the international law standards which did not include drug trafficking as one of the worst offences (they should have included it actually), and Singapore did not follow it. It was precisely why they have such sensitivity to paid this particular attention to Singapore executing drug traffickers--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anti-death penalty movement in Singapore has been going strong since Nagaenthran. These people are the embodiment of the movement, at least during this period of protests. -Jiaminglimjm (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. Do you have a source for this? A few dozen loud Malaysian or Singaporean activists making noise about Singapore executions does not equate to having a strong movement internally in Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was the involvement of the United Nations, Amnesty International and the European Union in the case, where they were critical of Singapore's use of the death penalty for drugs, which was not a common practice in most countries. Because of it, it cannot be said that the opposition is merely limited to the activists themselves, as they got support and backing from these major organizations (of course to me personally this kind of support should not be given for these criminals). NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: some policy-based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is dealing more with the capital punishment debate as well been notable enough for large Marcia coverage. The fact the drugs were in such a small quantity adds to general discourse of the capital punishment debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcallers (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 July 2022 (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.