Deletion of Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination)

Comment: Article is a gross violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: Comparing two things an author wants to compare is not an encyclopedic topic.  What about Comparison between Roman Empire and modern Uruguay?  More to the point, this article seems to be in large part an attempt to make the Roman Empire look bad.  Consider that contains sentences like this: "Nothing underlines the backwardness of the west more than the fact for thousands of years millions of human beings plowed the earth in a manner which was so wasteful of effort, and so utterly exhausting, that this deficiency of sensible plowing may rank as mankind's greatest waste of time and energy. Only the Chinese freed themselves from the tyranny of bad plows."  This is not only a violation of , it's a bad article.  If someone wants to present a scholars theory of these differences, it should be under the scholar's article, or under "So-and-So's Theory of the difference between
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as others have said more eloquently, we are here to present individual topics, not to make comparisons between them, no matter how well-written or useful. Those defending this may wish to consult  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: A flagrant violation of Wikipedia's basic principles of |Synthesis, |Original research and eutral point of view|Neutral point of view. This effort strongly reminds of the amateurish - and often resentful - attempts at empire comparisons now so popular in wargame forums (and it seems no chance that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:ORIGINAL||WP:N)

Comment: This article is surfing the boundary between  and  - either it is an indiscriminate comparison of two otherwise unrelated historical entities or it is an effort at creating a relationship between these entities (either historical or academic) that currently does not exist.  To explain: It is true that the Han dynasty has roughly the same relationship to Chinese culture that the Roman empire has to European culture.  however, the Byzantine empire had the same relationship with middle eastern Islamic cultures, the Egyptian and Babylonian empires had similar effects on the ancient world, the Mayan and Aztec empires influenced New World cultures in much the same way, and the modern world suffers from the same influences by European colonialism and American economic expansionism - why are all these excluded from the article?  to answer the (mostly rhetorical) question, they are excluded because including them would make the article '''truly''' and '''obviously''' an indiscriminate list of comparisons.  so why make the comparison between just these two?  because an editor (Teeninvestor) seems to want to make a point about the relative importance of the Han dynasty in cultural history.  While I find myself agreeing that it is an interesting and important point to make, wikipedia (as a tertiary source) is clearly not the correct place to be making it.  I suggest that relevant portions of this article be integrated into the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire articles, and that this article be removed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:SYN)

Comment: The article rambles on at incredible length, telling us some things about the Roman Empire and then some things about Han China. These topics are presumably already covered in the two respective articles, and it is not encyclopedic to just juxtapose the information from sources which talk about only one of the systems. That runs afoul of WP|SYNTHESIS and . Two apparently scholarly sources are listed in previous discussion and by Ikip above, which explicitly compare the two contemporaneous world powers. That is pretty skimpy for such a long article. To keep this article, which frankly does tend to say "My heritage is better than your heritage" based on sources from an era of legend, before modern notions of historical accuracy questioned the logistics of feeding an army of hundreds of thousands, and making dubious claims of science and technology not based on archeology. I would need to see far more independent and reliable sources with explicit comparisons of the economy, military, agriculture, science, etc. I doubt that every gadget someone wrote about was in common use, any more than Leonardo writing about submarines, tanks, and flying machines means they were in widespread use in Europe in his lifetime. I object to comparing Chinese accounts of the size of Chinese armies with Roman accounts of the size of Roman armies. We need scholars to have done the necessary discounting of legend and  fantasy. I would be surprised if there had not been a great many such scholarly comparisons, just as I have seen sources contrasting science in the Moslem world with science in the western Europe during the Middle Ages. The basis of the article should be the general scholarly view expressed in works explicitly comparing the two. If a large enough body of such scholarly comparisons and contrasts exist, then there is the basis for an article, and it can be kept and improved rather than "deleted and then started again
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)