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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Intelligent computer network (  | 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) reply

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

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

• 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) reply
• 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) reply
• 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) reply
  • No. From looking at the edit history, my reading is that this started out at intellgent network (sic), as an article on the Intelligent Network discussing the PSTN. But it wasn't particularly clear and overgeneralized. So it got renamed out of the way, people thinking that perhaps it was about some other subject, and the part about the PSTN then got removed. And here we are, 13 years later. Uncle G ( talk) 19:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep/merge The page was forked by Charles Matthews soon after its creation. As this branch didn't develop, we might just merge them back together per WP:PRESERVE and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Deleting this edit history would be disruptive. See also WP:BROAD. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Intelligent Network (to which intelligent network redirects) is a valid article and forked from this years ago. It also has (as this article doesn't) a clear scope, which is obviously distinct from any meaning for a computer network. There's no overlap, there's no edit history here worth preserving. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I also oppose merge or redirect. One reason is that "intelligent computer network" is not a recognised name for the "Intelligent Network" series of ITU standards. Also, given the uses of the phrase "intelligent computer network" out there are so varied, the odds are low that someone looking up that phrase would actually be looking for the topic of the "Intelligent Network" article. Given it isn't really a helpful redirect, and there is little of value in the history, I think delete is the better outcome here. SJK ( talk) 01:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comments The phrase "intelligent computer network" seems to hark back to 1990s thinking, and has rather been overtaken by the dumb network becoming standard. The first and standard comment I make is to the nominator: did you try Google Books? WP:BEFORE says you try Google Books. Then, a merge into context-aware network might work, in the sense that the page there (a) needs an explanation of the term, and (b) should be worked over anyway. Actually deleting old buzz-phrases isn't really the way to go. It is fairly normal, I'd say, that when the engineering approach moves on, the old language drops away. No need to be history is written by the victors about it, though, which isn't encyclopedic. Charles Matthews ( talk) 03:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Charles Matthews: Yes I did search on Google Books, and found nothing substantial. Regarding your proposal to merge to context-aware network, honestly I don't think that article is much better than this one, so I've proposed it for deletion as well. SJK ( talk) 12:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

So, it looks like "context-aware network" is a term that was fashionable around 2005. It's really the same issue as for this article, with added plagiarism (of Wikipedia, seemingly) in Google Books sources. To put the argument in better shape, if all that really can be referenced is a dicdef, then there is a case for deletion. With pages 2 to 19 of [1] missing, though, it is a bit hard to say that looking at Google Books is the "thorough search" for reliable sources required at WP:DEL-REASON, #7. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Even when Google Books doesn't let you see a page, it will still let you search its text. A text search confirms there are only two mentions of "context-aware network" in that book – on page xi, the acronym "ACAN" is defined as "Ad Hoc Context Aware Network", and then pages 22-23 discusses ACAN. SJK ( talk) 13:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I mean, the article isn't really coherent. I'd say merge or redirect, but it's been up for 14 years and still hasn't found a home. Hydromania ( talk) 05:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - At this point, I don't think there is any question that this article does not meet any sort of criteria for being kept, and Andy Dingley and SJK have very clearly explained why a Merge or Redirect would be inappropriate. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Because of lack of sources and vagueness of the existing text, I don't have any ideas on how to fix this. I haven't seen any good ideas from others either but will watch the discussion and am happy to change my opinion if a good idea emerges. ~ Kvng ( talk) 12:57, 7 June 2019 (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.