Talk:Posit Science Corporation

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

New article

I just created the article. I'll leave it to others to provide categories and an infobox, both of which tasks I know very little about. (I'm ignorant, not lazy or irresponsible. ;-) ) Lou Sander (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I don't at all see its promotional or advertising nature. I tried to make it an unbiased article about an important company in an emerging field whose credibility is still being developed.

The History and Products sections were created from widely-known reliable sources, hopefully without cherry-picking only the "good stuff" (just like the rest of the article). They just report, IMHO in an encyclopedic way, the subjects they cover. Maybe the first paragraph of the Reception section is a bit promotional, but the second paragraph tries to point out that in a newly-emerging field, one study has been evaluated by an independent reviewer as worthwhile.

If there are objections to the Reception section, I'd be comfortable with removing it. I thought twice about including it at all. I also thought about making the sentence in the introduction read "according to some published studies...", but that isn't what the sources say.

Other than that, I'd appreciate seeing somebody's thinking about why the article is promotional, or not notable, or whatever else is bothering them. Lou Sander (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried not to get too involved in the somewhat equivocal/unproven/questioned results of the entire field of brain enhancement software. This article is just about one of the companies in that field. Lou Sander (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right, go tell it to the marines, you nasty nutcase.137.205.183.31 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]