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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irudina[edit]

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

Article is about a Sri Lanka based newspaper. No indication that it is currently in circulation. Its website too is down. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither having ceased publication (if that is true) nor having a non-functioning website is a valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't think this article satisfies the criteria of notability either. This newspaper, as a characteristic of Leader Publications (Pvt) Limited, was highly critical of the Sri Lankan government. But since their major publication is The Sunday Leader, and it continues to publish, and this one does not, I don't think this paper needs a separte article in Wikipedia. One option could be a redirect. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 00:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I couldn't understand what is actually in the mind of Astronomyinertia. Initially he is coming out the reason for nomination is - "....No indication that it is currently in circulation" and when Phil Bridger is raising his objection he is jumping into a different reason. That reason is also not valid since under one group there can be many broadsheets and tabloids and they all can be qualified as separate Wikipedia articles whether they are in existence or defunct.Sudar123 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Clearly passes WP:N for a Sinhala Language newspaper from Sri Lanka. It has received international coverage BBC ,New York Times ,Fox News,Reporters Without Borders ,CPJ,Amnesty International amongst others have written about Irudina which is clearly notable for a Sinhala newspaper .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why this was relisted. Pharaoh of the Wizards showed there are good sources, and they are in the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (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.