Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformation of the Roman World

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. Tone 07:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation of the Roman World[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)

Non-notable research program; I was unable to find any independent sources which discuss it. Note that Ian Wood is not an independent source; he was a participant in the program. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A TV-series from pretty much before the internet became important. It dosen't surprise if references can't be found in large quantities, but I'm confiden't that they probably are available in some printed or physical form. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oleryhlolsson, The article is not about a TV series, it is about a "5-year scientific programme, during the years 1992 to 1997, founded via the European Science Foundation". Maybe there is a TV series by the same name? (t · c) buidhe 09:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake, I became somewhat tired after hours of editing. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to WP:EFFECT Sechinsic (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence of a lasting effect? (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Over one thousand Google Scholar hits for the phrase since 1997? Versus 161 down to 1992. Srnec (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and most of these seem to be citations of book titles, eg "Romans, Barbarians and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity" (2011), "The Transformation of the Roman World AD 400-900" (1997), "Regna and Gentes. The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World" (2002), a 2001 book titled "Transformation of the Roman World", seemingly unrelated to this research project. There's absolutely nothing you could use to write an article on the research project. (t · c) buidhe 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of funny to call a research project that spawned 18 volumes that generated thousands of citations "non-notable". Ward-Perkins criticizes it here. He also criticizes it in his book, but not in detail. The great problem is that there are no independent sources because everybody notable was involved. Including Ward-Perkins! The only reason I haven't voted "keep" is because if involved scholars are excluded, then I don't know where to start to write an article. Could we write an article on an archaeological expedition using the published reports of the archaeologists themselves? If that would be allowed, then I don't see why Wood's article wouldn't be here. Srnec (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Books often get reviews from independent reviewers, which could be used to write articles on them, but I don't think notability is inherited from book reviews, as they're unlikely to cover the project much at all.

The project, being an ESF affair, wouldn't have affected researchers who are outside the ESF. If these didn't write about the project itself, maybe it's not as important as you think it is. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EFFECT. A search on Google Books or Google Scholar quickly confirms that the The Transformation of the Roman World project has profoundly influenced recent research on late antiquity. Krakkos (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you would like to cite some sources that state there is such an effect, it does not help just to assert it. (t · c) buidhe 10:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2][3] Sechinsic (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholar hits for a combined "European Science Foundation" and "Transformation of the Roman World" are around 400 (and the hits remain good until the end). These are not random phrase hits, they specifically reference the results and impact of the programme. I agree that WP:EFFECT is satisfied. (The refs provided by Krakkos, above, are surprisingly shite though. What's the point of proffering that as an argument...?) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 August 2020 (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.