Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conceptual interoperability

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]