Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table-lookup 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 no consensus. I have no choice but to close as no consensus. The Anome's argument actually seems to suggest that this is a kind of wavetable synthesis, and linking to Google searches (rather than actual sources) hinders its effectiveness, and the recognition that there is OR here (but not removed, so it's impossible to judge what's what) is also damning. BD2412's argument is refuted, sources and all. Clusternote refutes Arthur Rubin's suggestion. In the end the solution is (as often) to follow DGG's advice, except that Anome's keep argument is problematic, and DGG's is more procedural than contentual: no consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table-lookup synthesis

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

An IP user has repeatedly nominated this for A11 speedy deletion but the article easily passes that test. The IP and the article's creator are edit warring over the CSD tag; I am nominating for deletion on behalf of the IP in order to stop this. I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about a month old and has just been discovered by me. It is both totally unnecessary and displays (and attempts to canonize in Wikipedia) the ignorance of the inventor of the article. Nowhere is the term "Table-lookup synthesis" used by anyone in the field. Googling "table lookup synthesis" gets pages with "Wavetable synthesis", "Fixed waveform synthesis", "Sound Synthesis Theory/Oscillators and Wavetables", etc. The closest page title was "Table Lookup Oscillators Using Generic Integrated Wavetables ..." but that is still not called "Table-lookup synthesis". It is a component part of Wavetable synthesis.

The use of LUTs for oscillators in music synthesis has nothing to do with Karplus–Strong string synthesis nor digital waveguide synthesis. Nothing at all, except they're all music synthesis techniques. And it needn't be forked from either lookup table nor numerically-controlled oscillator nor direct digital synthesis, which have other, not necessarily musical, applications in electrical engineering and signal processing.

It is clearly a creation of User:Clusternote's personal vision of reality, not what reality is. Wikipedia articles should be about verifiable reality, not one editor's made-up redefinition of terminology. The editor does not want to discuss the merits of the case and does whatever he can to quash the discussion. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to @65.183.156.110: ⇑ Above claims by this IP user (65.183.156.110) have been already disproved on article's Talk page in Yesterday. Following is a copy of my post:

Table-lookup synthesis is described as "the core of most synthesis algorithm" by Curtis Roads on his book "The Computer Music Tutorial" published in 1996, page 87.
Karplus-Strong string synthesis is described as "One standard synthesis technique is the wavetable synthesis algorithm. ... All the algorithms described in this paper produce the variation in sound by modifying the wavetable itself." by Kevin Karplus in section "Wavetable synthesis" on their paper "Digital Synthesis of Plucked-String and Drum Timbres published in 1983.
Digital waveguide synthesis is described as "a set of extensions in the direction of accurate physical modeling while maintaining the computational simplicity reminiscent of the Karplus-Strong algorithm." by Julius O. Smith III on "Viewpoints on the History of Digital Synthesis" first published in 1991, then reviced with Curtis Roads in 1992.

As you can see, the first claims (on Talk page) by this IP user (65.183.156.110) are proven to be the falsehoods contrary to the reliable sources, at now ! --Clusternote (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wavetable synthesis is certainly a real thing [1], and a lot of people have used the term "table-lookup synthesis" or similar [2], so it's not an invalid title. This article looks like it contains a certain amount of original research via synthesis, but as far as I can see, the main topics it covers are valid. I can't see anything which can't be resolved by content editing and/or article renaming/merging. -- The Anome (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Anome, since the article is OR and SYN and has no other author of content other than the inventor of the article, and since the terminology presented both in the title and within the article reflects no other person's usage, why keep it? I am not saying that the article should be renamed or even edited. It should be deleted. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. The article clearly contains meaningful content that is not original research, and cites numerous resources to demonstrate that the topic meets our notability and verifiability criteria. Speedy deletion is not a way to solve article content disputes. Please consider merging the content of this article into wavetable synthesis. -- The Anome (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that what I am saying is not what you're saying. I did point out that you are saying that "this article looks like it contains a certain amount of original research via synthesis" (and yet you want to "Keep" it) and what I am saying is that the article contains nothing more. And I am saying that terminology is being conflated with the existence of and in the content of the article. The term "Wavetable synthesis" has been used for a few different but related techniques. Most of that confusion centers around confusing it with simple sample-based synthesis which is what samplers and [cards] mostly do (sometimes sound cards generate sound using a real synthesis, like Frequency modulation synthesis, but most of the time these computer sound chips simply blap out a short (or long) buffer (or file) of samples. But, back in the 90s, Creative Labs was using the term "wavetable synthesis" to describe this (in the Sound Blaster, which started some of the confusion back then.

What Clusternote is doing is unilaterally muddying the terminology waters again. He doesn't understand any of this and wants to legitimize his lack of understanding with a Wikipedia article he can point to. Note that no one else has contributed content to it. It's a novel that Clusternote solely is writing. And he's writing it using Wikipedia as a platform.

Lot's of audio processing and synthesis algorithms read numbers from an array in memory. E.g. reverb algorithms do that, they lookup numbers in an array (or "table"). But we don't call them "Table-lookup synthesis". Like digital reverberators, Karplus–Strong string synthesis, physical modelling synthesis, digital waveguide synthesis all have delay lines. In a delay line, numbers are written to an array and later read from the same array. None of these algorithms are, in any manner, wavetable synthesis and Clusternote is trying to use Wikipedia to make that false connection. Wavetable synthesis has some relationship with samplers|sample-playback "synthesis" but is not the same and it has a closer relationship with numerically-controlled oscillator and direct digital synthesis (which are not even music synthesis topics) but is not quite the same (except in a degenerate, static case). 65.183.156.110 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A more refined Google search confirms that this has long been a specific topic, under this specific name (see [3], [4], [5]). bd2412 T 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pollefeys is totally unrelated. Has nothing to do with the topic here. Maher and PC Mag are examples of the conflation of terms in the 90's that Clusternote is trying to perpetuate, using Wikipedia. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wavetable synthesis. The name is legitimate, but the non-OR content is already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to @Arthur Rubin: The current content of article "Wavetable synthesis" is clearly too narrow, thus redirection is inappropriate. That article explain about a subclass of "Multiple wavetable synthesis" (Horner, Beauchamp & Haken 1993) which is a subclass of generic wavetable synthesis explained on this article. Unfortunately, the generic wavetable synthesis invented in the late-1950s (Table-lookup synthesis) and its sub-subclass invented in the late-1970s (Wavetable synthesis) are sometimes called in the same or very-similar name for a few decades, thus often confused. However, the coverages of these are completely different, as written on Curtis Roads 1996, p. 87. --Clusternote (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, and let the experts discuss whether to merge. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 3 April 2015 (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.