Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General rating of city appeal

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 no consensus. SarahStierch (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General rating of city appeal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently developed method (2012) with no sources and no Google-hits outside Wikipedia (limited to western script hits, no Google test with Russian script). Seems to fail WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are given, although in Russian not English, which seem to establish the notability and importance of this rating. Following "assume good faith" I am going to assume the sources are genuine and that the article honestly reports what they say.BayShrimp (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Russian sources given in the article are all related to the Russian Union of Engineers, the "inventor" of this rating. No independent sources. The Banner talk 22:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously any articles about the rating are going to mention the creator of the rating. As far as I can tell though, at least two of those sources are independent in that they were written by a third party. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2013 (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.