Deletion of Intelligent computer network

Comment: Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by .  Googling, I had the same experience as the nom and was unable to find suitable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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?  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: as  #A7.   Whilst there are a plethora of "intelligent computer networks" 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: too vague to be verifiable - it's not clear that the article reflects reality. Notability is important . This may be original research? 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NI||WP:NOR)