Talk:Genstat

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

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

GenStat Discovery Edition

I agree that GenStat Discovery Edition should be merged with this article (see Talk:GenStat Discovery Edition). Engelec (talk) 12:33, 08:23, 1 February 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

GenStat Article Sources

The article presents two sources neither of which is from an independent third party. The primary source is a press release for GenStat by the producing company, VSNi. The secondary source is a review article written by Roger Payne, the company's Chief Science and Technology Officer. Are there third-party reviews of the latest GenStat that could serve as sources for the article? 66.31.34.247 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reviews of the latest version, but there was a review of Genstat 9 in The American Statistician in 2007 doi:10.1198/000313007X219310. They also reviewed Genstat 5 in 1991 doi:10.2307/2684463. There's another review of Genstat 5 in a chemometrics journal doi:10.1016/0169-7439(87)80029-1. This 1999 book also appears to be an independent source. Qwfp (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because we would like to share more information that benefit for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.151.88 (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", please? Maproom (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notability template message. I came here after reading a blog entry from 2015 that implies the software is well-known ("If you want Genstat, you know where to find it: base R isn’t going to address everyone’s often-inconsistent needs", [1]). And the sources listed above show it has attracted attention over many years. JonH (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]