Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endogeneity in multinomial response models


 * 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. Per WP:TNT, which isn't a policy or guideline, but the deletion policy does leave some room for the deletion of totally unsuitable content in the last point of WP:DELREASON Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Endogeneity in multinomial response models

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had listed at PROD for the reasoning "At best, an article on a niche problem in discrete choice that's better handled there. At present, it's barely coherent and riddled with typos, making it useless." To elaborate: everything duplicates discrete choice except the final section starting "However, in many practice...". That section doesn't make sense: the revised equation is identical to the previous equation, and the text contradicts discrete choice. Therefore, there's no useful content here. Wikiacc (¶) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc (¶) 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm tending to agree that this is unintelligible, but I'm not seeing that this duplicates discrete choice. That article does not discuss endogeneity anywhere. Can the nominator please explain where that is covered in the page. SpinningSpark 15:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not, but this article also doesn’t discuss endogeneity until the incoherent final section. Everything here up to the first log likelihood assumes exogeneity. I don’t see any content here that could usefully be turned into a discussion of endogeneity at discrete choice. Wikiacc (¶) 16:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This page was created by a now-blocked paid editor, apparently for the purpose of an academic experiment to test the effect of having one's papers cited on Wikipedia.  It was not created with improving the encyclopaedia in mind.  I also note that it was moved to mainspace after being rejected at AFC without any improvements being made in the intervening time.  Not worth wasting any more effort on this one. SpinningSpark 17:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the intentions of the creator are going to be used as arguments in a deletion discussion at all, then we might as well be clear about them. The creator, Carolineneil, was not a paid editor, but an academic who commissioned (and yes, paid) other academics or graduate students to identify gaps in wikipedia's coverage of econometrics and then write up articles to fill in those gaps. Yes, this was in the context of a study, but its aim was to gauge the influence of these wikipedia articles on subsequently published academic papers (not the other way round). I'm the editor who accepted the AfC draft, what I took account of was the fact that the previous rejection was completely spurious, and the circumstances of the creation of the article itself – if an expert an a given field with which I'm not familiar has decided there should be a wikipedia article on a certain topic in this field, I'm willing to accept their judgement. – Uanfala (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two comments:
 * Take a look at the research paper by the study designers; it was part of the experimental design that User:Carolineneil added many new articles, while never editing or expanding existing articles. Anyway, judging that the topic deserves its own article requires both knowledge of Wikipedia and knowledge of the subject matter. It appears that the authors selected topics by picking sections out of the Wooldridge graduate textbook, which isn't a great guide to Wikipedia article scope.
 * If there should be an article on this topic (which I doubt; check the incoming links and JSTOR) I'd argue that WP:TNT is apt. The current material is unrecoverable. Wikiacc (¶) 22:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The content is bad enough, with buggy equations (the last two log likelihoods seem identical) and prose that is nearly a word salad, that this should be deleted per WP:TNT. -- 10:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mark viking's point regarding WP:TNT. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2019 (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.