Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FutureSinhala


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FutureSinhala

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence that this software is notable. Google search results in 113 hits, 22 "unique". Contested prod. ... disco spinster   talk  01:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a Software but a concept for software to be developed. All software developers developing natural language software in Sri Lanka must make their software compatible with the concept to get the aproval of ICTA Sri Lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.233 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

--please read http://www.siyabas.lk/docs/Presidential_Circular_on_Sinhala_Unicode.pdf and http://www.locallanguages.lk/node/95 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.233 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication that this standard is currently notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. At the very least, the rule laid out by 165.228.99.233 should be solidly referenced. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

--Clearly states the rule http://www.siyabas.lk/docs/UNICODE_CIRCULAR_3.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasiths (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reference states the rule only as an instruction to be followed by government employees. As such, it can only be regarded as an internal memo. If non-government developers read this circular and then throw it in the garbage as something nearly all of them intend to ignore, then the circular cannot, by itself, be regarded as a reliable reference to establish notability. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 06:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are not aware of the influence the government of Sri Lanka holds on these matters. Anyway it is upto you and your original statement said it should be refrenced and has been done. Wiping off your prejudisim about the topic though is beyond me. As there is no one qualified or informed enough to judge on the issue here this will be the last objection I make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasiths (talk • contribs) 07:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say, clearly you are not aware of the influence the government, you are stating the very reason why we have adopted a policy on verifiability. If the Sri Lankan government influence is as strong as you claim on such matters, the available outside evidence of such an influence shouldn't be that hard to find. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. An internal memo isn't exactly convincing me otherwise. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.