Talk:Extensibility

Candidate for deletion?

Since it has been tagged for a couple of years without verifiability, it's possible that this article is simply not notable or not verifiable? Can all the material in the article be reliably sourced? Is it original research? --Ds13 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's pretty on the mark stuff and a key concept for software development that we should be able to get out of a decent textbook. The problem is more likely that it does a good job for those who search the topic, and nobody on the practical side is worried about the work of "reverse-sourcing" the info. It can be sourced; it's not original, ground-breaking research (aside from, perhaps, the OED claim). I'll try to remember to come back at some point if nobody else does. Rufwork (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

it needs to be differentiated from the broader definition of extensibility which hui is a property of many different biological and inorganic substances - in this metier extensibility is usually linked with elasticity. Maybe it could do with a disambiguation effort as Rufwork is spot on about its importance in a software and systems universe. Maybe we should split the effort ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaztastic (talk • contribs) 07:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, disagree. Topic exists in software quality, QA, etc. Maybe not a big bang right now, but would leave it. Done--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)