Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arellano–Bond estimator


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Arellano–Bond estimator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has only a few references and is an orphan. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. To start with, I'm not sure than any actionable cause for deletion has been raised here. That aside, there IS a tendency in this field to get articles about non-notable processes without any adoption outside their initial paper. That doesn't seem to be the case here, however. The first link provided indirectly leads to the original paper in which the topic was proposed, published in The Review of Economic Studies. The second is this paper in Applied Economics. Axel Dreher is the lead author there, and this estimator gets a lot of use in his other published works; ensuring breadth of adoption, though, it's pretty easy to find unrelated researchers both using and discussing this topic. This paper in Environment and Development Economics includes a discussion of both the advantages and shortcomings of the Arellano-Bond estimator compared with other alternatives. Finally, I'd like to observe that many of the papers in question are very highly cited; the Applied Economics paper, by Google Scholar's count, has over 1100 citations. This is a niche topic, but it does seem to be a notable one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 18:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google scholar shows 16810 citations for the main Arellano–Bond source paper. This is an extremely high number for any academic work and to me indicates that this is clearly a notable topic. Additionally searching Google books for "Arellano-Bond" finds many suitable in-depth reliable secondary sources, giving it a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - it explains regression analysis, a very complicated field. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important econometric technique. References and in-bound wikilinks will come. --bender235 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2015 (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.