Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Great Inventions of ancient China


 * 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 is that this a valid topic and notable. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Four Great Inventions of ancient China

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article centers around a phrase that is not notable in English. The phrase is a Chinese-exclusive phrase used to promote nationalism and cultural pride. The phrase was translated literally. The content of the article is covered in detail by numerous other articles, most notably List of Chinese inventions. Voidvector (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   —Voidvector (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite Passes WP:NEO, but needs rewrite of the subsections to explain why they're considered part of the Four Great Inventions. Article rename may be in order. There are a lot of Chinese phrases like this that have notability in Chinese, but I'd bet there's notability in English for this one. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If the phrase is being used "to promote nationalism and cultural pride", that's an indication of notability. Plus, these are clearly notable inventions of the Chinese. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I suspect this can be merged somewhere, but I don't know where is best. The content detailing the chinese contribution of the individual inventions is completely superfluous.  For this article to properly exist, it should discuss the phrase, and discuss the history of how those four inventions came to be worthy of the specific grouping.  If it can be attributed to a single source, it might redirect to that author. -Verdatum (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article claims that the term is used by Joseph Needham, a prominent sinologist, whom is BRITISH. I don't see this as promoting British national pride. The nom's reasoning seems invalid. 70.51.9.151 (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply It is not a term coined by him, he simply pointed out the four inventions. As you can see the quotation included doesn't even contain the word "four". In fact, the article doesn't even say how the term was coined, goes on to describe the four inventions, content of which is covered thoroughly elsewhere. --Voidvector (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Science and Civilisation in Ancient China, the encyclopedic compendium that Needham & Co. are compiling. 70.51.9.151 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My god, why? The article is on a Chinese phrase that is only related to that book in a cursory fashion. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that an article called Science and Civilisation in Ancient China does not exist.--lk (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This article is on what "Chinese Tradition" and the late Joseph Needham, the greatest Western scholar on Chinese technology, identified as the greatest inventions. Accordingly the choice of four (or three or five) is the Point of View of a great scholar, not the POV of some WP editor; this is utterly different.  We also have a list of Chinese inventions, whose contents fluctuate periodically, and articles on individual subjects.  A weakness of WP (with the ability of any one to edit is that articles on general subjects tend to expand ad infinitum as each editor throws in their contribution.  This should certainly not be deleted, rather it should be a GA candidate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Agree with Peterkingiron. This one is obvious. The topic is notable, and has been frequently discussed in both scholarly and popular literature for a long time. The page itself is well written and properly cited. More should be written about the context and origin of the term, but that is not a reason to delete. --lk (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply most of the citations are on individual inventions, which are covered thoroughly elsewhere. This article does not even mention the significance of this phrase, the etymology of it, and usage of it in the Chinese culture. It is akin to to having an article on the United States and only talk about each individual 50 states. An out-of-focus article like this will never get GA. --Voidvector (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete:The article tries to lay square claim to four inventions which does not do justice to the fact that each invention has a complex history. The compasses we use today and which made then the age of discovery possible are of Europe origin (dry compass, liquid-filled magnet and gyrocompass). The Gunpowder as a propellant appeared as early in Europe where anyway the real potential (key word "Gunpowder revolution") was exploited first. Printing started off only with Gutenbergs printing revolution. Only paper can today be still regarded as a Chinese invention, and even here mechanical production of paper by water mills started in medieval Europe (1280s in Bologna). To put it in a nutshell, Needhams research is half a century old. Moreover, Needhams sinocentric POV (scholarly biases have rarely to do with their nationality), and more generally of the Needham Research Institute, has been also noted by several independent scholars, such as Robert Finlay. MANY of Needhams hypotheses have been proven wrong in the meantime, including the view that the ancient Chinese knew the spherical earth (they regarded the earth in fact as flat), that the Chinese were the first to build segmental arch bridges (there are a dozen Roman bridges of that type still standing) or that the Han Chinese invented the central rudder (already known 2000 BC by the Egyptians as proven by numerous wooden tomb models and wall paintins. Museums in the Rhineland are full with ancient Romano-Celts central rudders as well) or the fore-and-aft-rig (predated by Roman fore-aft-rigs by several hundred years. See Lionel Casson), and so forth. Needham also believed that the Chinese invented the "first plastics" and "biological control". This article is not only full of errors and misrepresentations, it is one big error. Why is the English philosopher Francis Bacon misused here as principal witness of so-called Chinese inventions, when in fact he had purely European developments in mind, that is printing revolution (printing),the explorations of the age of discovery (compass) and gunpowder revolution (gunpowder)? When we keep that article how long will it take before other ethnocentrists will create their own articles with their own exclusive worldviews? I am for strong delete, because the four items are already discussed with much more competence by contributors in the respective articles. "Four Great Inventions of ancient China" agitates only readers as it now does for over a year (note that this is the second or third time a deletion has been proposed). Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That appears to be your POV: The fact that Joseph Needham defined the term, provides a robust definitve definition. If you can provide scholarly sources contesting (or criticising) Needham's view on the number or identity of the inventions, I do not see what that should nnot be added to the article as an additional secion at the end (assuming it survives this AFD process).  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military.  Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the first articles where I became involved in trying to bring to NPOV. The concept is a notable one, well documented. the individual details of the inventions will obviously be a summary, and care has to be taken that they reflect the consensus as given on the main articles on the individual topics. That the compasses or printing in use today may have an independent origin does not denigrate in any way the importance of the Chinese inventions.  DGG (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very important subject, properly sourced, utilizing the eminent Joseph Needham as a source. Badagnani (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (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.