Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capability-based programming


 * 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. Deor (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Capability-based programming

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Asserts WP:OR at the moment. Comes from an accomplished software engineer advancing a possible approach to device integration and control for Iot devices/systems but currently not an accepted dev. standard amongst the computing firmament. Almost copied verbatim from his blog which he has licensed. scope_creep talk 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving to Merge into SMPTE ST2071 article, which is becoming an accepted standard. scope_creep talk 12:34  8 August  2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;I'm not seeing enough in the way of WP:RS to justify an article at this point in time. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article discusses a methodology described within the SMPTE ST2071-1 standards document to address the "Basket of Remotes" and object self-description problems posed by generic device/service control applications. I have added the reference to the prose document in which it is defined and removed any text that sounds promotional.  posicks   talk to me  17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The methodology of using identified features (aka. Capabilities in this case) is becoming a common theme in device/service control applications, such as media & device control within the professional media industry, home automation, and the Internet of Things. For example, the Eclipse Smart Home Core project has/is adding similar concepts, calling the objects "Things" and the identified features "Channels", as has the FIMS 1.1 standard with the introduction of "Capabilities" to their Repository specification.  In addition, products by vendors such as Fairlight also use these concepts within their product lines in order to allow clients to work with features, not objects.  The methodology of implementing self-describing objects through the use of small, concise, uniquely identified features seems to be an emerging development pattern.  Maybe this text is better served as part of the SMPTE ST2071 article until the methodology becomes more commonplace.  Please advise.  posicks   talk to me  19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi posicks . This is a really filthy business, moving to delete the written word. I really don't want this article deleted (being an inclusionist and being a software dev with 25+ years in industry), but at the moment, there is a drive in WP in which articles need to be both verifiable and notable. Is there any development environment around the standard, any reference designs, any stuff say by a dev community of perhaps  Microsoft Codeplex, GitHub, Google Groups or any dev site. Is there any reference samples, resource kits, other blog posts, comments in trade papers, whitepapers anything which can add some depth to the references.  Had a look at the FIMS 1.1. It does seem to be an emerging standard, with a Youtube series on. It also seems to be fairly robust. I think a merge into SMPTE ST2071 article is the best approach until it becomes best practice.
 * scope_creep talk 12:34  8 August  2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Is it 'In world' or 'out world' - i forget. There is a particular WP term to describe jargon that is only of interest to people who are specialist in a given field. Szzuk (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete it is currently an unsupported (lacks adequate coverage) WP:Neologism/concept, maybe it is just WP:TOOSOON as scope creep suggests, or maybe it is destined for the dustbin of history. --Bejnar (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.