Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wu Rui


 * 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 here is that the article needs work but no one has been swayed by the nominator to support deletion.  A  Train talk 11:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wu Rui

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entire content of this article is already found entirely at Castration, Eunuch, and Lê_Thánh_Tông and is therefore a violation of WP:Content forking and it doesn't meet WP:Notability_(people), "Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies" and "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." The event is a small sub-section of the article eunuch and not notable for its own article so how can the person be as notable? The second paragraph also has nothing to do with the article topic and is COATRACK. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG to stand on its own as an article since its only mentioned in a grand total of three English language sources and all the content here is available on other Wikipedia articles. Most of the article content has nothing to do with Wu Rui. Only two of the English language sources are secondary sources. One is a primary source translation and the fourth English language source does not mention the subject of the article directly. If all the off topic material was deleted the article would be a stub of one sentence or one paragraph. Zathe (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course most of the article should be removed as belonging in general articles about castration and eunuchs, but that doesn't take away Wu Rui's notability. Sources in Vietnamese or Chinese are just as valid as sources in English for establishing notability, and, even in English, I've found this book with significant coverage in addition to the ones cited in the article. And, incidentally, the article hasn't been tagged with an AfD template. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The entire article is a violation of WP:Content forking. The article was copy pasted from eunuch and castration and none of the content would be missing if it was deleted. The book you pulled up was already cited in the article and Wu Rui is only mentioned briefly on two pages of the book in actual content. The other two page mentions are in the reference notss and index. That isn't significant coverage. None of the Vietnamese sources mention Wu Rui and the Chinese sources are only two. A primary source and its duplicates and one Chinese article and its duplicates which were copied on several websites. Run the text through a translator or look at them yourselves. They are duplicates of the same reference.Zathe (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Wu Rui is not "only mentioned briefly on two pages of the book in actual content". The first 600 or so words of chapter 5 are all about him. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first 600 words of chapter 5 is two pages. The book is a compilation of essays by different authors in each chapter on the history of the border between China and Vietnam and not even on the person whom the article is about. So Wu Rui gets a mention on the article on Eunuch where he is already mentioned and cited. The entire article is a big content fork and nothing is lost by deletion. Why is the exact same content duplicated on several articles over again? And actually the third English source is just a translation of the Chinese primary language source. So Wu Rui is mentioned briefly on one page of one book, two pages of another book, and a primary source. It suffices for a paragraph on an article like eunuch but it isn't enough for its own article see WP:notability. Explain the value of having content on a non-notable minor topic from a bigger article like eunuch forked and duplicated exactly onto its own page? Then users can split dozens of major articles into small duplicates for each section that way and create thousands of content forks.Zathe (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:Notability: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Two pages about the subject in a book is significant coverage even though the main topic of the chapter is not Wu Rui. I agree that much of the current content of the article doesn't belong there because it is not specifically about Wu, but we still have enough coverage of him in reliable sources. In fact, for a 15th century Chinese subject who came to prominence in Vietnam, it is quite exceptional for this much coverage to be available in English. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wu Rui is only mentioned in two academic secondary sources in a total of three pages. No other academic secondary source mentions him. The article doesn't meet guidelines for WP:Notability_(people) and the entire content even about Wu Rui is already on Eunuch. He wasn't prominent in Vietnam because there are no Vietnamese sources that mention him. Only one Chinese primary source briefly mentions him in a short paragraph entry and two English secondary source reference that primary source for a total of three pages of content in books which are about border history.Zathe (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you said that already and I moved the discussion along by showing that the definition of significant coverage in our notability guidelines does not require Wu to be the main topic of the books or even the chapters. Please don't just repeat what has already been refuted as grounds for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The event is not notable for even its own article. The event is a sub section Eunuch of the eunuch article. And the entire content of that sub section of eunuch was duplicated exactly into its own article on the person affected by the event. That section mentioned 100 other people got castrated in the same circumstances as Wu Rui but their names aren't recorded. If their names were recorded, would you consider it legitimate to create 100 different stub articles on each person duplicating the exact same text found at Eunuch? That's literally the only difference. Wu Rui's name was recorded while the 100 other names are unknown. A legitimate article to create would be one called History of the China Vietnam borders where this information can be placed. Not this article on a single person.Zathe (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole point of our notability guidelines is that we cover topics that are recorded and written about in reliable secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sources mentioned those 100 people. We don't have an article called 100 unknown people or 100 different articles of unknown number one, unknown number two until unknown number one hundred. The subject of those two secondary sources is border history and three pages briefly mentions this event including this person which happened on the ocean borders. The event and person are not notable for their own articles. Otherwise someone could create an article called anonymous 100 people castrated and duplicate the same content. This is pointless WP:Content forking and duplicating the same content. An entire section of an article Eunuch was basically forked under an article of a single person involved in these events.Zathe (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, the accident of history, as with many other subjects from half a millennium ago, is that we have significant coverage in independent reliable sources about Wu Rui, but not about those others. That means that we can have an article about Wu but not the others. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Three pages mentioning a person in two books about border history isn't notable and isn't significant coverage. Both secondary sources are soured to a one paragraph entry in a primary source which has hundreds of other entries and mention hundreds of other individuals. There are other individuals mentioned on the same two books and primary source who are equally not as notable. If this was an article about the history of the China Vietnam border I wouldn't nominate for deletion. But this is about a non notable individual originally mentioned in a single paragraph. Read Notability_(people) It says The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. There is no further coverage of this individual other than the two secondary sources about the event.Zathe (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * who are you? You come out of nowhere to advocate for deletion.100.35.73.190 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. It may well be that this editor has been editing without logging in, as we do, but needed to create a userid in order to be able to create the deletion discussion page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a person.Zathe (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * are you the same person who nominated Otherkin for deletion? 100.35.73.190 (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No I am not.Zathe (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we please take personal/conduct issues elsewhere and concentrate here on whether we should have, according to our policies and guidelines, an article about Wu Rui? This whole thread is a distraction from the main issue, to which Zathe's identity is just as irrelevant as the editor's at 100.35.73.190 or mine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Potential keep -- I observe that there is an article in another language, presumably Vietnamese. While that article exists, I do not see why the English WP should not have an article.  We seem to have an article with a lot of citations, though not English language ones.  The fact that the content is also in a general article on Eunuchs is neither here nor there: it may be that the general article is too long and the content needs summarising there.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Peterkingiron Look closely at the Vietnamese article. Its a shorter duplicate of the English article created by one of the same editors of the English article and it was created after the English article and is a translation of it. It uses the same sources as the English article including the English books. I count four sources on that article. The two English secondary sources, one English primary source translation of the Chinese primary source and the Chinese primary source. There are no Vietnamese sources which mention Wu Rui. And its a one sentenced stub now. Eunuch isn't the only article where the same content appears. It appears on castration and Lê Thánh Tông. Reconsider your vote.Zathe (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reconsidered. The answer that an article could be merged to a general one where he is an example may seen attractive, but it is a destructive solution. Though I cannot read them, there are enough citations to remove objections, other than that the person might be NN, a matter on which I am not qualified to judge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Peterkingiron Take my word, there are only two relevant citations out of four on the Vietnamese article. The two English language secondary sources in the books are the only relevant citations because they are the only secondary sources. One of the books mentions his story in one paragraph and the other in four sentences. The other two citations are the primary source in English and Chinese which those two secondary sources cited. Everything else is not a secondary source and are duplicates of each other. The fifth citation in the Vietnamese wikipedia has nothing to do with Wu Rui but with the other 100 people. There is no Vietnamese source which mentions him. I trimmed the English article on Wu Rui of everything that was not relevant so there are three English citations which are the two secondary sources and the one primary source translation. This fits in at Lê_Thánh_Tông because the two secondary sources are talking about ocean border policy in his rule so everything on the Wu Rui article is relevant to Lê Thánh Tông.Zathe (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to pass GNG. Is not a content fork - much longer than the linked articles - and this seems to be more of an issue in the linked articles than here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Struck - based on very poor reading of the apparently long and sourced article on my part.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Icewhiz Look at the linked articles again. There is no way Wu Rui is longer than Castration, and Eunuch Eunuch. Every single word on Wu Rui was copied from those articles and later other editors did small modifications. It is very much a content fork. Its an issue over here, not in the linked articles, because over half of the article Wu Rui is not about Wu Rui but about other people getting castrated and castration in general. Voters here need to read and look closely at the articles.Zathe (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral. You are correct. It isn't an exact copy (which fooled me) - but yes. And the Wu Rui article does contain alot of irrelevant refs and alot of copied content. I was however able to find this - - which treats Rui to a full 2 page account (including several details not in this article). And there probably is more in Chinese. I suspect there are enough sources to make an article on Rui specifically (so my base !vote would be a weak keep), but given the poor state of the article (In need of a massive trim + addition of info specific to Rui) - I'm Neutral unless someone picks up the gauntlet for WP:HEY on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Icewhiz There is only one source in Chinese. The original Chinese primary source is one paragraph in an entry of the Ming Shilu annals and that is where the two English language secondary sources cite the information from. The 2 pages in the book you found were cited by the article and are the exact same information which is found in the entry of the annals. What the book you cited did is literally just stretching that one paragraph over two pages with some other information and analysis mixed in. Anyone can stretch one paragraph found in a primary sources into two pages by adding fluff and analysis.Zathe (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While it is true stretching primary sources is possible, when this is done by what apppears to be secondary RS some 500+ years later does seem to lend notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that Wikipedia is based on secondary sources rather than primary. Much of our coverage of the ancient and mediaeval worlds (sorry to use eurocentric terms but I'm not so sure about how East and South-East Asian history is divided up) is based on very few primary sources, but we rely on secondary sources that analyse those primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Icewhiz User:Smmurphy the topic and context of the books are on the history of the border region between China and Vietnam. This was one incident that happened in the border region out of many and the reason it is briefly mentioned on one and two pages in those books is because its related to the border. If someone created an article on the border or history of the border it would be relevant information to put there. But on its own the individual is not notable. There are hundreds of other people mentioned in the same secondary sources and primary source.Zathe (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see hundreds of other people covered in the same way in the secondary sources, but if there are any they also have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so pass notability guidelines. What are their names? Where is the two pages of secondary source coverage for any of them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The hundred other people are literally mentioned on the same page. Other incidents involving other people in the same border reginare mentioned in the other secondary sourceZathe (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned without names and with less than a sentence between them. The coverage is in no way comparable to that of Wu Rui. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The two page count for the first book with Wu Rui is misleading. His story is mentioned in basically one paragraph and further mentions of him are just speculation in relation to border policies of the two countries. The entire count is one paragraph in one book and four sentences sentence in another book. That's pushing the grounds on coverage and notability. This incident could be mentioned in a single paragraph on border history between China and Vietnam or Lê Thánh Tông and nothing further is necessary.Zathe (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - He has an entry in the collection of Ming empirical annals, Ming Shilu (Geoff Wade, translator, Southeast Asia in the Ming Shi-lu: an open access resource, Singapore: Asia Research Institute and the Singapore E-Press, National University of Singapore, http://epress.nus.edu.sg/msl/reign/hong-zhi/year-12-month-8-day-6, accessed October 17, 2017) which is the basis of most (all?) of our information about him. That said, I would say that interest in fairly ongoing and the annals provide at least two data points about his life/career beyond his capture and castration and which are not really worth merging anywhere else, but do, I think, give us enough for a stub about Wu Rui suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I am not competent in this area to do a full HEY, but I would suggest that from the life section, the first, forth, and fifth (last) paragraph be cut and the rest be cleaned up a bit. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Smmurphy There is no need for a merge or article because the entire content of the article including all the details about Wu Rui's life is already on Castration, Eunuch, and Lê_Thánh_Tông. There is literally no information lost by deleting the article. It would be a pointless stub forking and restating what is already on those three articles.Zathe (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But specific information about one person does not belong in such general articles. The pointless thing is the inclusion of details about Wu Rui in those other articles: the fact that it appears in three other articles makes that point. Details about Wu should appear here, and this should be linked by those articles rather than have the same information three times. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm not clear why Rui is given more than a passing mention in any of those articles, and think he could probably be removed from them (I don't think many other members of Category:Ming dynasty eunuchs are mentioned in those articles). I don't see why the article is a POVFork, and it isn't clear that the article is really a fork, it was added to those two of those three pages (Lê_Thánh_Tông and Eunuch) on April 2 and 3, 2013, by the creator of this page, User:Lan Thoa, and the third page (Castration) a few months later. This article was created April 3, 2013. So to me, it seems that the user thought this subject was an important enough part of Lê_Thánh_Tông, Castration, and Eunuch that it should be discussed on those three pages as well as having its own article. My !vote is that the subject is suitable to have its own article, but that it should be mentioned only in passing if at all in the other three pages. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - All criteria matched, I see no reason to delete. A notable eunuch in history.Tart (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tart Three pages in two secondary sources on border history in notable? Keep in mind this article would be a stub of one sentence or one paragraph at most if all the off topic material was deleted.Zathe (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no prohibition of stubs, and, even so, there's more content about Wu himself in the secondary sources that can be added to the article. Why do you prefer to keep this content in three separate articles rather than in just one place? You seem to keep repeating your original opinion rather than replying to other editors by explaining why that would be a better outcome. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing more in the secondary sources about him that isn't in the article already. Everything that is mentioned about him fits in the other articles and there is no need for a stub repeating them word for word.Zathe (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Peterkingiron User:Icewhiz User:Smmurphy User:Tart I deleted everything in Wu Rui that's not related to the topic from the article. All of the stub could still fit into Lê_Thánh_Tông, Castration, and Eunuch. If it's off topic on eunuch and castration it could still be entirely hosted at Lê_Thánh_Tông and the stub wouldn't need to exist.Zathe (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And, once again, why does content about Wu Rui belong in an article about Lê Thánh Tông? To include this there, rather than just make a link to this article, is WP:UNDUE weight. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because both secondary sources are about border history between China and Vietnam when Lê Thánh Tông was ruling? The second source is specific about his border policies and this incident with Wu Rui is only mentioned in the context of border policy when he was ruling. Everything in the Wu Rui article is mentioned in the secondary sources in that context of the border on the ocean.Zathe (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (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.