Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent computer network

Intelligent computer network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Intelligent computer network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Almost 14 years and still no sources. Searching for sources, I can find a few uses of the phrase "intelligent computer network(s)" (e.g. this paper), but those uses I can find seem to have very little to do with the sense this article proposes. It seems to me that while a handful of reliable sources using this term can be found, their uses of the term don't have much in common with each other, and hence can't form a basis for an article. In other words, this isn't really a standard term in computer networking; various people will sometimes propose various ways in which networks could be made more intelligent, but those proposals have little in common with each other, and even less in common with the text of this article as it stands. (I would have PRODed but it was already PRODed back in 2006 and the deletion was contested then.) SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• delete as WP:CSD#A7. Whilst there are a plethora of "intelligent computer network]]s" for which a case could be made, this article is so vague that it's impossible to tell what it's trying to mean. The article conveys no more knowledge than putting together random words from a technical dictionary. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling, I had the same experience as the nom and was unable to find suitable sources. Msnicki (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete too vague to be verifiable WP:V- it's not clear that the article reflects reality. Notability is important WP:NI. This may be original research? WP:NOR Ericwg (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)