Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese speech synthesis


 * 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. Canley (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese speech synthesis

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

I'm no longer sure this is encyclopaedic, and nobody else seems to have joined in at making the article any better. It's basically a collection of links to different synths with short summaries of how they're supposed to work (including a lot of personal observation, which is reproducible but not widely referenced). Silas S. Brown (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep a reasonable sub-topic of speech synthesis, and one that seems to have a sufficient number of people studying it that we could write a better encyclopedia article on it: . cab (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For those who may be confused, the nominator is also the article's original author. cab (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see anything wrong with it. A number of people have now worked on it. DGG (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the history I can see improvements to the markup/headings, turning phrases into wiki links, and typo fixes, but no new material. "A number of people have now worked on it" - did I miss something?  We could wait for someone to do a proper survey of the research, but if we have an article on Chinese speech synthesis then do we also want articles on Cantonese speech synthesis, Japanese speech synthesis, Korean speech synthesis, Vietnamese speech synthesis, Spanish speech synthesis, French speech synthesis and so on for every language in which there is published research on speech synthesis, and who's going to write them all? Silas S. Brown (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly would be wrong with having a series of neutral, verifiable articles on a series of topics on which academic papers have already been written? cab (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems like a valid article, needs work, but what articles don't? Fosnez (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2008 (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.