Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ryde Gold Medal

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 redirect to Trinity College, Kandy. in the event someone uses this search term, they will at least get to the parent article. I've left the history intact in the unlikely event that any of the text could be merged in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ryde Gold Medal[edit]

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

Even after making full allowance for WP:Systemic bias, this unreferenced content has no place in Wikipedia. The medal is obviously important to boys at Trinity College, Kandy, but at a world level is entirely non-notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information to Trinity College, Kandy. I wouldn't put the list of winners on that page, but I think a mention is at least appropriate. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While in general I agree with PaintedCarpet above, the medal is of at best only local significance, and no redirect is necessary, any article which might chose to mention that their boy won this medal, would already have linked to Trinity College, Kandy. I do agree that a one-liner there can adequately mention the award. --Bejnar (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been around since March 2006 and lacks any independent source. --Bejnar (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 11 June 2014 (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.