Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conceptual interoperability

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. Sandstein 09:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual interoperability

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

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

I gave this a fair bit of thought but, in the end, I don't think this is suitable as a Wikipedia article. It only very unclearly explains what the topic is even about. After reading it through several times I painfully and cautiously reached the conclusion that it's saying that systems designed to work on the same or similar kinds of data are better at it than systems not designed to work together. Then you can divide how good systems are at cooperation into arbitrary levels and give them fancy names, and this article apparently is mostly about the highest and best level.

All of this is not that interesting or useful a revelation, and it's bogged down in a swamp of pompo-verbosity. I suspect the author of the article, and of the conference proceedings it's based on, is deliberately disguising the content's banality with confusing fancy words. Just look at the ridiculous clipart "figure".

I think this should be deleted because the point of an encyclopedia article is to impart information to the reader. This article doesn't do that, and cannot ever do that because the sources it's based on are also buzzword laden nonsense. Reyk _YO! 06:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The prose in the article is clear enough. Anyone who has dealt with large scale software development, such as the mentioned military simulations, or semantic web technology, or component object models, or the internet, etc., has had to think carefully about how the parts of the whole fit together and the appropriate level of sharing among those parts. It's not a canonical model, but LCIM example seems fairly typical of systems thinking among people in this field. The nom is welcome to dislike the subject matter, but the article is a reasonable summary of the conceptual interoperability field and is a long way from complete bollocks in the Wikipedia sense. The article does have some problems--it leans too heavily on primary Tork sources, it could use more development of non-LCIM approaches, and promotion could be toned down. The subject looks notable, however, and the issues are a matter of editing, not deletion. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article in its current state is incomprehensible - at least for me. TNT rewrite would help there. No opinion on notability yet. Pavlor (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to agree with Mark viking on notability, but cannot agree that the prose is clear enough. The first paragraph of the lead is OK, but the second paragraph is opaque and doesn't immediately appear to be speaking to the article subject at all, let alone explaining what it is. Looks like the article used to be called composability or similar, explaining that. Still, deletion is not for cleanup unless this is really bad enough for WP:TNT. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT. TNT is an essay, not policy, but I believe this is a case for it. There is a concept behind this page that is probably notable, so some article on this subject could exist. Yet the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform and educate readers, regardless of background. This article does not do that. A reader coming to this without an existing background in the subject will, like the nom., feel this is incomprehensible. A reader with the background will read the papers this article is based on (and it is heavily based on those papers). Any article on the subject must describe clearly what the subject is about and why it is important, and this article just does not do that. It needs blowing up, and if an editor then feels there is anything to tell on the subject to a general audience, they can start over. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Douglas Adams "Telephone sanitation operatives." Call it the Golgafrinchan solution. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:25, 4 March 2020 (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.