Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Won Jang
- 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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Death of Won Jang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEVENT, not in depth coverage or over a sustained amount of time. The only news since it happened was some people getting charged. ATD redirect to List of hazing deaths in the United States#2020s, where it is included (and, note, most of those deaths seem covered to the same degree as this and do not have articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Connecticut. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- redirect: is fine, not every death is notable. This was sadly just another hazing that went wrong, not the first or the last such event. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sets this apart from other hazing deaths is that the police actually decided to press charges in this case, which doesn't always happen. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 12:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: This article has ample sources that provide significant coverage. The most recent article is in The New York Times, providing significant coverage on a national level. This event was also covered in USA Today and The Guardian and People, again providing significant coverage in the US and internationally. Furthermore, this death just happened last year. It is premature to say that there is no ongoing coverage, as there has been a steady number of articles and coverage throughout 2024. I searched Newspapers.com and found 58 hits in 2024, in newspapers across the country. These articles were published in July, August, September, and November. That is coverage in four of the six months since the event happened. That seems like ongoing coverage to me. Rublamb (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Such early coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. For a notable case, the coverage might drop off in the interim, but there would be something, or a piece that analyzed it in relation to a broader topic. This does not have that. All the later coverage is press releases/basic announcements which do not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is another recent article in the Washington Post. I don't think you can call this a press release article. This is another article in People, from July 2024, meaning it was covered in this national magazine two times, both reporting and following up on the death. WP:EVENTCRIT says that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". This event had widespread national and international coverage. Rublamb (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first is a routine legal announcement that does not contribute to event notability. The second is from the day or so after it happened, also not very helpful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A byline article in a newspaper with a wide circulation does indeed count toward notability; this article is signficantly different from the short announcement in, for example, USA Today. People covered the death twice, showing ongoing coverage at a national level. Rublamb (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn’t always, depending on the type of coverage and how they are covering it. Legal updates are almost never helpful for notability and coverage form the day after something happened cannot demonstrate sustained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- A byline article in a newspaper with a wide circulation does indeed count toward notability; this article is signficantly different from the short announcement in, for example, USA Today. People covered the death twice, showing ongoing coverage at a national level. Rublamb (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first is a routine legal announcement that does not contribute to event notability. The second is from the day or so after it happened, also not very helpful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here is another recent article in the Washington Post. I don't think you can call this a press release article. This is another article in People, from July 2024, meaning it was covered in this national magazine two times, both reporting and following up on the death. WP:EVENTCRIT says that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". This event had widespread national and international coverage. Rublamb (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- Keep: Like @Rublamb said, the event has been heavily covered in news and magazines since July, and the case continues to have new information reported in the midst of the ongoing police investigation. Some sources have covered this event more than once. The article is already sourced with a significant amount, which should meet the notability requirements. Cheera L (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cheera L This does not pass notability though, since all sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: WP:PRIMARYNEWS says ""Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source..." It continues, "AFDs (articles for deletion) require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for...breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." This clearly states that primary sources are appropriate for articles such as this initially. If no secondary sources are found after two years (late 2026), it would then be appropriate for AfD. However, this nomination is premature, especially if your objection is going to be based on WP:PRIMARY. Rublamb (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rublamb Yes, I do not dispute that more primary news sources are often very useful but primary sources do not help for notability per WP:GNG (which is what WP:NEVENT compensates for). This does not pass NEVENT either, and shows little indication of future coverage. That part of it does not mean we have to keep every breaking news event onwiki for two years after it happens. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a not a random breaking news event, but an incident that was broadly covered in major and national publications. WP:NEVENT allows for the inclusion of these types of events. (Consider that Olympics and election outcomes are allowed in Wikipedia prior to the publication of journals and books). If you continue reading WP:PRIMARYNEWS, you will see that newspaper coverage can be a secondary source; for example, if it is interpreting primary sources such as police reports and court records. This is clearly the case here. WP:GNG says allowable secondary sources include "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals." For this article, the identified potential sources provide significant coverage in the allowable formats of newspapers and magazines. Rublamb (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was covered for a few days and then coverage dropped off except for undetailed legal reporting that is basically "person got charged". Yes - and can you genuinely argue that any of the coverage above is analytic or retrospective and not "person got charged"? Because it isn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As stated above, this topic was covered in July, August, September, and November (four of the six months since it happened). That is very different from your description of a few days of coverage and, then, coverage again when sentenced in November. Unless you have reviewed all 58 articles in Newspapers.com and completely read the articles in the NYT, the Washington Post, USA Today, People, and all of the current sources, it is pretty presumptuous to say that all of these sources are "undetailed". As part of the AfD process, we look to see if an article can reasonably be improved. Given the number and range of sources, that seems more likely than not. Rublamb (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was covered in July and with press release tier material when they were charged. Having reviewed the newspapers.com sources, literally all of it is reprinting the exact same material about the political charge, or his initial death, except for two articles: one a brief mention in a September piece from a local outlet that says in effect "this was sad for the college" and one in a piece in August that says the same. This is not WP:INDEPTH sourcing which evidences event notability.
- What is there to say about this? It happened, it did not result in anything or get retrospected upon, this reads like a news article. It is a hazing death, of many hazing deaths, and is not more notable than any other hazing death on that list. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Guess you didn't read all of the articles because this was not a hazing case. No evidence of hazing was found. This was an alcohol related death. As this article in a national magazine notes, the real story is selective in enforcement of underage drinking laws at Dartmouth. This source should also meet your desire for an analytic or retrospective article. Rublamb (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No that's just an extra sign this isn't notable. A guy drowned because he drank too much. It got talked about because people thought it was hazing and then that might not even be true. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a great theory but it doesn't fit the factual timeline. Jang died in July and there was some news coverage. A second round of news stories mentioned that the Greek letter organizations were suspended and that there was an anonymous tip suggesting hazing and alcohol. After a police investigation, the cause of death was announced in September, with a finding of no hazing; this was covered by some news outlets. Individuals were charged in connection with his death in November. The majority of national and major publication coverage was in November, related to the criminal charges. This indicates that the main story was students being charged in connection with another student's death, as well as underaged drinking at Dartmouth's GLOs. As the Reason article demonstrates, one issue is Dartmouth's alleged blind eye to student partying. This is a long-running narrative since the film Animal House was based on an actual Dartmouth fraternity. Numerous news articles mention, in the prior year Dartmouth had allowed both of the involved GLOs to continue operating for offenses that would have resulted in expulsion at other colleges. As this article reveals, another issue was the deaths of students in the river; this was the second in a short period. (This is also a second source that explores responses to death, rather than being about the death). Based on the prior coverage of this event, it is reasonable to expect additional news coverage when the students go to court, etc. Rublamb (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are all local college news and do not help for notability. WP:EVENTCRIT is not passed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Local collage news? Reason is a national magazine. The extensive article in The Washington Post is a secondary source because it interprets official records. There is also coverage by Newsweek, People, The New York Times, NPR, CNN, and The Boston Globe. WP:EVENTCRIT says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." Thus, this article meets WP:EVENTCRIT because 1) it has widespread national coverage in diverse sources and 2) it was analyzed afterwards. Rublamb (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every article that wasn't breaking news of one variety (of them being charged, or the event) is local. This is not being re-analyzed afterwards. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, Reason is not a local publication, but a national magazine. Its article is not a news report but an analysis of the criminal charges, criticizing the outcome and handling of the incident. Rublamb (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I did not say it was. It is a brief recount less than six months after the event occurred (not long enough to pass WP:SUSTAINED) and says very little. That single piece is not enough to base an article on. At most this is worth a sentence on a related article. How on earth can we have an article that is - a guy drowned. People thought it was foul play but actually nothing happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Enough. You all made your points.BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I did not say it was. It is a brief recount less than six months after the event occurred (not long enough to pass WP:SUSTAINED) and says very little. That single piece is not enough to base an article on. At most this is worth a sentence on a related article. How on earth can we have an article that is - a guy drowned. People thought it was foul play but actually nothing happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, Reason is not a local publication, but a national magazine. Its article is not a news report but an analysis of the criminal charges, criticizing the outcome and handling of the incident. Rublamb (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every article that wasn't breaking news of one variety (of them being charged, or the event) is local. This is not being re-analyzed afterwards. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Local collage news? Reason is a national magazine. The extensive article in The Washington Post is a secondary source because it interprets official records. There is also coverage by Newsweek, People, The New York Times, NPR, CNN, and The Boston Globe. WP:EVENTCRIT says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." Thus, this article meets WP:EVENTCRIT because 1) it has widespread national coverage in diverse sources and 2) it was analyzed afterwards. Rublamb (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are all local college news and do not help for notability. WP:EVENTCRIT is not passed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a great theory but it doesn't fit the factual timeline. Jang died in July and there was some news coverage. A second round of news stories mentioned that the Greek letter organizations were suspended and that there was an anonymous tip suggesting hazing and alcohol. After a police investigation, the cause of death was announced in September, with a finding of no hazing; this was covered by some news outlets. Individuals were charged in connection with his death in November. The majority of national and major publication coverage was in November, related to the criminal charges. This indicates that the main story was students being charged in connection with another student's death, as well as underaged drinking at Dartmouth's GLOs. As the Reason article demonstrates, one issue is Dartmouth's alleged blind eye to student partying. This is a long-running narrative since the film Animal House was based on an actual Dartmouth fraternity. Numerous news articles mention, in the prior year Dartmouth had allowed both of the involved GLOs to continue operating for offenses that would have resulted in expulsion at other colleges. As this article reveals, another issue was the deaths of students in the river; this was the second in a short period. (This is also a second source that explores responses to death, rather than being about the death). Based on the prior coverage of this event, it is reasonable to expect additional news coverage when the students go to court, etc. Rublamb (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No that's just an extra sign this isn't notable. A guy drowned because he drank too much. It got talked about because people thought it was hazing and then that might not even be true. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Guess you didn't read all of the articles because this was not a hazing case. No evidence of hazing was found. This was an alcohol related death. As this article in a national magazine notes, the real story is selective in enforcement of underage drinking laws at Dartmouth. This source should also meet your desire for an analytic or retrospective article. Rublamb (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As stated above, this topic was covered in July, August, September, and November (four of the six months since it happened). That is very different from your description of a few days of coverage and, then, coverage again when sentenced in November. Unless you have reviewed all 58 articles in Newspapers.com and completely read the articles in the NYT, the Washington Post, USA Today, People, and all of the current sources, it is pretty presumptuous to say that all of these sources are "undetailed". As part of the AfD process, we look to see if an article can reasonably be improved. Given the number and range of sources, that seems more likely than not. Rublamb (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was covered for a few days and then coverage dropped off except for undetailed legal reporting that is basically "person got charged". Yes - and can you genuinely argue that any of the coverage above is analytic or retrospective and not "person got charged"? Because it isn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a not a random breaking news event, but an incident that was broadly covered in major and national publications. WP:NEVENT allows for the inclusion of these types of events. (Consider that Olympics and election outcomes are allowed in Wikipedia prior to the publication of journals and books). If you continue reading WP:PRIMARYNEWS, you will see that newspaper coverage can be a secondary source; for example, if it is interpreting primary sources such as police reports and court records. This is clearly the case here. WP:GNG says allowable secondary sources include "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals." For this article, the identified potential sources provide significant coverage in the allowable formats of newspapers and magazines. Rublamb (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Rublamb Yes, I do not dispute that more primary news sources are often very useful but primary sources do not help for notability per WP:GNG (which is what WP:NEVENT compensates for). This does not pass NEVENT either, and shows little indication of future coverage. That part of it does not mean we have to keep every breaking news event onwiki for two years after it happens. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: WP:PRIMARYNEWS says ""Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source..." It continues, "AFDs (articles for deletion) require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for...breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." This clearly states that primary sources are appropriate for articles such as this initially. If no secondary sources are found after two years (late 2026), it would then be appropriate for AfD. However, this nomination is premature, especially if your objection is going to be based on WP:PRIMARY. Rublamb (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Cheera L This does not pass notability though, since all sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stop belaboring points already made. This needs to have new voices weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep: I might have agreed that deletion might have been justifiable before November 24th, but the large wave of coverage I saw in reaction to the charges filed that day changed my evaluation. It's definitely much more keep-worthy now. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 06:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - plenty of coverage. Good sourcing in article. At this point WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2025 (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.