Deletion of Context-aware network

Comment: per nom and Andy Dingley.  The actual topic title may be notable, but all indications seem to point towards the fact that this article does not, in any way, correctly or accurately describe what the actual concept is.  There is a big difference between an article that is imperfect, and one that is comprised entirely of riginal Research.   may not be official policy, but the idea that incorrect, borderline incoherent, articles are better than nothing is ludicrous
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:TNT)

Comment: per .  This is an excellent topic for an article, should anyone wish to write one. Unfortunately we don't have one as yet, and this article (pretty much unchanged since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Context-aware_network&oldid=21799273 the first draft in 2005) is so lacking that I see it more as a barrier to a decent article than a useful starting point or framework
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid reason to delete.  The actual policy is  which states{{quote|Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: Per Rorshacma. Fails  and could use some 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TNT)

Comment: Lacks ANY reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required .  I agree with nom that the term does appear in scholarly articles but that it's unclear that what this article describes is consistent with what is described in those scholarly sources.  Imho, this entire article appears to be impermissible 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:OR)