Deletion of Conceptual interoperability

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)