Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endogeneity in multinomial response models

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spinningspark (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 22 May 2019 (delete, not worth expending effort on improving a paid editor's mess). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Endogeneity in multinomial response models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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#Only differences matter. Therefore, there's no useful content here. Wikiacc () 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc () 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Wikiacc () 15:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]