Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singlish Sinhala Transliteration Scheme

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Singlish Sinhala Transliteration Scheme

[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)

Deprecated mid-2000s way of entering Sinhala text, no longer relevant, quickly superseded and seldom used even in its heyday. Seems to be mostly an ad for "Singlish for Sinhala SP", some WinXP abandonware. WP:PROD'd twice, first as Singlish Typewriter; that failed when User:DGG removed the PROD; then under this new title, but User:Explicit felt that broke the PROD rules so here we are. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No mentions in news articles, no scholarly mentions and few to no reliable sources in general. Therefore, this article is not notable under the general notability guidelines. --MrClog (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is informative and has encyclopedic value. Germcrow (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MrClog. If kept, rename. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:16, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and MrClog. --mikeu ^talk 11:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can confirm MrClog's findings that the sources don't seem to be there. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MrClog.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2019 (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.