Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IVONA

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 Amazon Echo#Overview of operation. czar 17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IVONA[edit]

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

The only reason this company could be considered notable is because it was purchased by Amazon. Other than that, this article either reads like an advertisement or is too technical for the average reader to understand. The technical information come from non-independent sources and does not prove notability. Proud User (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the proposed deletion. Ivona was/is one of the leading text-to-speech products and deserves a place on wikipedia, just like any other of the thousands of software described in other articles. The article could/should be modified so that 'it doesn't read as an advertisement' (NB: AFAIK Ivona stopped selling its products to privates) but the page should definitely stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0rents (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this company is successful and known enough that there should be no problem finding reliable third-party information. There's obviously room for improvement, so that the article doesn't read like a press realease. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kpalion, this is AfD so now's the time to show the secondary sources czar 04:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found no better sources. @L0rents: We don't decide whether a company "deserves" to be here, it's whether article on that company meets the standards agreed upon by the community. @Kpalion: I concur with Czar. While it seems like there should be better sources out there, we shouldn't be deciding on an article based on speculation--this is precisely the time when those sources should be found and added to the article. I tried and failed. Note: @MBisanz's double-relisting (and self-reversion) on 1 September caused this page to be commented out of that day's daily AfD log. I've fixed this--as that was the "third" relisting, there should be no more after this. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation, where the company and TTS are mentioned. Considering this is one of the better TTS systems out there, I was surprised to find little in the way of independent reviews or history. Ivona appears in lists of best TTS systems, such as [1] (looks reliable) and [2] (seems well researched, but it is a blog). There is basic verifiability, but these fall short of WP:GNG notability thresholds. Its biggest claim to fame is as one of the foundation speech technologies in the Amazon Kindle and Echo devices. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, we should preserve verifiable material instead of deleting it. Until more independent sourcing becomes available, a redirect to it most notable use seems the best way to give readers a little information about the TTS without outrunning the sources. --Mark viking (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation per the above - Article is clearly promotional and the sources aren't amazing, Better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation where it is discussed. Anything useful can be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amazon Echo#Overview of operation I don't see enough sources to show that it is independently notable. The only sources talk about Amazon acquiring it, so I guess a redirect works fine. I don't think a merge is appropriate per WP:UNDUE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2016 (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.