883:
article should at least suggest how assuming heavier-tailed distributions is probably almost always better (because in any real application there are no doubt unmeasured, omitted explanatory variables, which in effect cause greater variation in outcome than would be expected in the simple model) and can actually be easily addressed... logit regression is one alternative different only in this way. Assuming Cauchy/other stable distribution function are options, maybe adding one or two more parameters to be estimated. Offhand, I am not sure how to rank the importance of the various variations. --
837:
good 3-D graphics). It probably should have one or maybe two well-chosen example applications. Mainly, it should be written to be accessible to persons having a basic understanding of statistics, such as from just one statistics course in college or just one "Data and statistics" type course in business school, say. It should clearly lay out the idea of probit regression following from a few "simple" assumptions. The ideas of heterogeneity and endogeneity are far, far, far too much for the first, introductory article about probit regression.
814:. If that's true, then can this doncram (or anyone else with expertise) provide a clarification for why the content could not be included as a subsection of that article? The article itself is not especially long so it's not a space issue , but if there's a technical reason why presenting this information as a separate subsection under that main heading is inappropriate then it may be best to not merge it and to leave it as a standalone article as now with an explanation for why it's kept separate documented in the talk page.
933:
computation, the basic article should include just the assertion that the maximum likelihood surface is convex and has just one maximum to be found (i.e., under the assumptions of the probit model, for any one data set there is just one "best-fitting" set of coefficient estimates, and these can be found by a simple search process ...there are no local maxima to worry about), and brief suggestion of one simple approach to finding way to the maximum should be given there. --
79:
656:
has taken coursework about equivalent to that required for a masters degree in statistics, I think. Perhaps this article should be split into different topics, or revamped considerably to cover multiple refinements of the basic probit model including heterogeneity of errors, endogeneity, more variations. I cannot say that editor
74:
746:. It is not written in accessible language and thus fails the "no academic language" requirement. Moreover, whilst I see a number of supporting references in the article, all I can see are the titles, so I do not know if they directly support the notability of this topic, so I have concerns about the extent to which
655:
article. About heterogeneity, and/or about endogenous explanatory variables, I could not do that. I am more in the category of wishing that this article were far better/clearer than it is, so that I could understand it properly. This article should be written at level comprehensible to someone who
855:
Thank you for the clarification. With that additional context, it does seem logical to keep this article as it is and, probably on the talk page, discuss trimming it down so that it is at the appropriate level of language. It might also be useful to have an external link pointing to this article in
877:
Further, in the basic probit model article there is a section "Performance under misspecification" which should be removed from there, and put into a more advanced-level article. I suppose that heterogeneity and endogeneity are special cases of misspecification of the basic probit model. I think
660:
is wrong, in their estimation that the variation(s) addressed in this article are relatively obscure. But I think the solution would be to revise and to expand this, and re-title it as appropriate. Probably there should be one article (this article should be revised to become) on variations upon
836:
article because this topic is too complicated. The "probit model" article actually should be simpler than it is. For example, it should have graphics explaining the model much more clearly (I wish i could easily provide those... I could hand-sketch what is needed, but I currently can't generate
882:
somewhere above suggests, perhaps facetiously, something about covering "unbalanced panel with interaction terms" stuff; maybe that is one more type of thing to be covered as a variation? Also the normality of distribution of errors is a strong assumption which should be relaxed; the advanced
146:
141:
461:
case. I am a professional mathematician myself and I have no idea what the page is talking about. There are no definitions of any kind, the topic of the article is not coherently described, the various quantities/notations/variables used are not defined or explained, and there are no clearly
150:
932:
Also, by the way, the basic probit model article should not have to cover
Berkson's whatever and Gibbs sampling, which I think might both be considered computational/solution aspects. Computation/solution method stuff should probably be covered in a different advanced-level article. About
703:
446:
133:
220:
712:
That sounds very reasonable to ask if someone with more experience than I have, whether they could fix up this article better. As i explain in comments above and below, I don't think this should ever be merged into a lower-level article on the basic probit regression model.
480:
Well, I am an econometrician and can attest that the article is correct, although poorly written. However, even the most beautiful rewrite does not change the fact of my opening statement, that this particular model is too much of a special case to merit its own article.
320:
Mark viking's comments seem beside the point in my opinion: nobody doubts that this particular model "is real and seems adequately referenced." It sure is, but it's an overly special corner case that does not merit its own article. Next thing we have an article on
722:
214:
180:
1068:
1051:
1030:
1000:
977:
942:
911:
869:
850:
823:
794:
775:
670:
490:
471:
421:
389:
363:
334:
311:
288:
272:
58:
627:
840:
If this article were merged with the probit model article, then the only sensible options, for editors of that article, would be to split the merged material right back out again, or entirely delete it all.
784:
FOARP has valid complaints about the article, which would properly be addressed by editing the article, not deleting it, IMO. But it is not redundant or POV in any way, relative to the basic probit model.
874:
You're welcome. :) Yes, a "See also" type link at the bottom of that page is appropriate. (It wouldn't be labelled an "External link", because those go to locations outside of
Knowledge (XXG).)
750:
is actually met - whilst I am assuming the good faith of the editors who added it to the article it would be good to have this confirmed by someone with access to these journals. Also, this is a
235:
462:
idetifiable and properly formulated mathematical statements. Basically just a bunch of incoherent semi-mathematical verbiage. In mathematics we refer to this kind of text as "not even wrong".
202:
196:
547:
173:
434:
192:
137:
242:
1018:
129:
64:
987:- It's clear that some of the contributors to this discussion lack subject matter expertise on this topic, but to clarify this topic cannot be comfortably folded into
651:
I happen to have a very clear understanding of the basic probit regression model, and I am sure I could explain it (teach it) a lot better than is done in the current
208:
105:
251:
I don't know how this one survived the first AfD nomination. It is hopelessly over-technical; something that (if at all) should be mentioned in a section in
691:
120:
894:
Just for the record, because it seems this was misunderstood: I suggested "something about covering "unbalanced panel with interaction terms" stuff" as a
878:
this article should be modified to cover a number of variations, each really being ways to address various misspecifications of the basic probit model.
694:, which suffers the same difficulties as this page: too obscurely written even for people who know math, and devoted to a case of narrow scope.
661:
the basic probit regression model. Sticking to binary responses, setting aside extension of the basic model to multiple levels of responses. --
322:
861:
815:
992:
552:
100:
93:
17:
975:
686:
Would anyone with experience in stats or econometrics be willing to put in the time to clean this up so it might be merged, e.g. to
457:. Written so increadibly badly that the article is incomprehensible even to the experts, so much so that the page is a borderline
899:
401:
377:
256:
114:
110:
80:
Articles for deletion/Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables (2nd nomination)
965:
1085:
40:
644:
373:
751:
397:
865:
819:
996:
739:
632:
961:
743:
347:
75:
Articles for deletion/Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables
1081:
1064:
699:
498:
442:
36:
351:
755:
405:
1026:
907:
486:
385:
330:
268:
228:
759:
409:
1047:
938:
888:
846:
790:
718:
666:
404:
because its simply a redundant fork of the iphone article. Alternatively you could say it's a
307:
89:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1080:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1060:
695:
438:
299:
962:
User_talk:Carolineneil#Single_purpose_account_for_experiment_on_Wikipedia:_should_be_banned
747:
735:
771:
640:
467:
417:
359:
1059:, as non-encyclopedic. If the base article needs to be easy to understand, so does this.
458:
1022:
903:
879:
657:
482:
381:
326:
264:
1013:
correctly pointed out, Knowledge (XXG) is not a textbook. We discuss topics like the
1043:
1019:
Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables
1014:
988:
934:
884:
857:
842:
833:
811:
807:
786:
763:
714:
687:
662:
652:
303:
252:
130:
Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables
65:
Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables
167:
1010:
767:
636:
463:
413:
355:
260:
692:
Binary response model with continuous endogenous explanatory variables
255:. Right now this is the econometrics equivalent of having an article
810:
indicated that it would be inappropriate to merge this article with
622:{\displaystyle \int _{\pi }^{c_{ji}}V_{mn}\otimes e^{\alpha }dx=0}
1076:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
991:, though it is notable enough to support a standalone article.
860:, similar to how we have related articles point to each other.
742:. It also appears to be a how-to style article and thus fails
898:. I do not want this kind of an article. Neither do I want
376:. Basically the same reason why we don't have the article
832:
Sure, that's easy. This article cannot be merged to the
350:. What actual policy reason is being invoked here? Is it
323:
Tobit model in an unbalanced panel with interaction terms
960:
Way way too niche. All the creations ought be nuked per
1017:
for a general audience, and leave specializations like
495:
The article is no more "correct" than the sentence "If
163:
159:
155:
227:
555:
501:
738:. It is a text-book style article and as such fails
412:
emphasis to relatively minor aspects of the iphone.
400:
might be a better fit - we don't have an article on
734:- I think this article fails a number of points on
241:
621:
541:
346:- Neither "Too technical" nor "Too detailed" is a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1088:). No further edits should be made to this page.
435:list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions
433:Note: This discussion has been included in the
8:
121:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
900:iPhone 11 in yellow and with 256 GB storage
806:- In the previous discussion, another user
402:iPhone 11 in yellow and with 256 GB storage
396:I get what you're saying here, but I think
378:iPhone 11 in yellow and with 256 GB storage
257:iPhone 11 in yellow and with 256 GB storage
630:
432:
1009:I do have expertise in this area, but as
601:
585:
570:
565:
560:
554:
527:
522:
506:
500:
72:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
302:'s "Keep" !vote in the first AFD. --
281:per nom, clearly way too technical.
542:{\displaystyle x_{ij}+U_{k}^{i}=42}
71:
740:Knowledge (XXG) is not a text book
24:
106:Introduction to deletion process
1:
1069:19:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
1052:16:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
1031:18:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
1001:17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
978:16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
943:16:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
912:18:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
870:15:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
851:15:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
824:13:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
795:15:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
776:07:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
723:15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
704:04:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
671:15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
491:23:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
472:21:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
447:20:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
422:11:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
390:15:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
364:14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
335:04:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
312:03:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
289:03:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
273:02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
59:00:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
96:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1105:
964:and the subsequent block.
1078:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
758:(since it is avoiding
623:
543:
70:AfDs for this article:
624:
544:
94:Articles for deletion
553:
499:
408:because it's giving
580:
532:
619:
556:
539:
518:
1021:for textbooks. --
648:
635:comment added by
449:
374:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
372:I would say it's
298:. I concur with
111:Guide to deletion
101:How to contribute
1096:
973:
968:
752:WP:REDUNDANTFORK
628:
626:
625:
620:
606:
605:
593:
592:
579:
578:
577:
564:
548:
546:
545:
540:
531:
526:
514:
513:
398:WP:REDUNDANTFORK
300:User:Mark viking
286:
284:Ten Pound Hammer
246:
245:
231:
183:
171:
153:
91:
56:
34:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1086:deletion review
969:
966:
862:208.185.237.210
816:208.185.237.210
690:? There's also
597:
581:
566:
551:
550:
502:
497:
496:
282:
188:
179:
144:
128:
125:
88:
85:
68:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1102:
1100:
1091:
1090:
1072:
1071:
1054:
1042:per bender235.
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1004:
1003:
993:107.77.203.224
982:
981:
980:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
880:User:bender235
875:
838:
827:
826:
800:
799:
798:
797:
779:
778:
728:
727:
726:
725:
707:
706:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
618:
615:
612:
609:
604:
600:
596:
591:
588:
584:
576:
573:
569:
563:
559:
538:
535:
530:
525:
521:
517:
512:
509:
505:
475:
474:
451:
450:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
367:
366:
340:
339:
338:
337:
315:
314:
292:
291:
249:
248:
185:
124:
123:
118:
108:
103:
86:
84:
83:
82:
77:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1101:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:- ChrisWar666
1058:
1055:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
983:
979:
976:
974:
972:
963:
959:
956:
955:
954:
953:
944:
940:
936:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
892:
890:
886:
881:
876:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
839:
835:
831:
830:
829:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
796:
792:
788:
783:
782:
781:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
730:
729:
724:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
708:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
682:
681:
672:
668:
664:
659:
654:
650:
649:
646:
642:
638:
634:
616:
613:
610:
607:
602:
598:
594:
589:
586:
582:
574:
571:
567:
561:
557:
536:
533:
528:
523:
519:
515:
510:
507:
503:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
460:
456:
453:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
431:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
341:
336:
332:
328:
325:and so on. --
324:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
290:
285:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
190:Find sources:
186:
182:
178:
175:
169:
165:
161:
157:
152:
148:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
126:
122:
119:
116:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
98:
97:
95:
90:
81:
78:
76:
73:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1077:
1075:
1056:
1039:
1015:probit model
989:probit model
984:
970:
957:
895:
858:probit model
834:probit model
812:probit model
803:
764:Probit model
744:WP:NOTMANUAL
731:
688:probit model
683:
653:probit model
631:— Preceding
454:
348:WP:DELREASON
343:
295:
283:
278:
253:Probit model
250:
238:
232:
224:
217:
211:
205:
199:
189:
176:
87:
49:
47:
31:
28:
985:Strong keep
352:WP:NOTGUIDE
215:free images
756:WP:POVFORK
696:XOR'easter
439:XOR'easter
406:WP:POVFORK
259:on top of
1082:talk page
1023:bender235
904:bender235
658:Bender235
483:bender235
382:bender235
327:bender235
265:bender235
261:iPhone 11
37:talk page
1084:or in a
804:Question
760:WP:UNDUE
754:or even
684:Question
645:contribs
633:unsigned
410:WP:UNDUE
174:View log
115:glossary
39:or in a
1044:4meter4
935:Doncram
885:Doncram
843:Doncram
808:doncram
787:Doncram
715:Doncram
663:Doncram
344:Comment
304:Doncram
221:WP refs
209:scholar
147:protect
142:history
92:New to
55:Lourdes
1057:Delete
1040:Delete
958:Delete
748:WP:GNG
736:WP:NOT
732:Delete
455:Delete
279:Delete
193:Google
151:delete
50:delete
1011:FOARP
768:FOARP
762:) of
637:Nsk92
549:then
464:Nsk92
459:WP:A1
414:FOARP
356:FOARP
236:JSTOR
197:books
181:Stats
168:views
160:watch
156:links
16:<
1065:talk
1048:talk
1027:talk
997:talk
939:talk
908:talk
902:. --
896:joke
889:talk
866:talk
847:talk
820:talk
791:talk
772:talk
719:talk
700:talk
667:talk
641:talk
487:talk
468:talk
443:talk
418:talk
386:talk
380:. --
360:talk
331:talk
308:talk
296:Keep
269:talk
229:FENS
203:news
164:logs
138:talk
134:edit
971:WBG
629:."
287:•
243:TWL
172:– (
1067:)
1050:)
1029:)
999:)
941:)
910:)
891:)
868:)
849:)
841:--
822:)
793:)
785:--
774:)
766:.
721:)
713:--
702:)
669:)
647:)
643:•
603:α
595:⊗
562:π
558:∫
537:42
489:)
481:--
470:)
445:)
437:.
420:)
388:)
362:)
354:?
333:)
310:)
271:)
263:.
223:)
166:|
162:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
52:.
1063:(
1046:(
1025:(
995:(
967:∯
937:(
906:(
887:(
864:(
845:(
818:(
789:(
770:(
717:(
698:(
665:(
639:(
617:0
614:=
611:x
608:d
599:e
590:n
587:m
583:V
575:i
572:j
568:c
534:=
529:i
524:k
520:U
516:+
511:j
508:i
504:x
485:(
466:(
441:(
416:(
384:(
358:(
329:(
306:(
267:(
247:)
239:·
233:·
225:·
218:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
195:(
187:(
184:)
177:·
170:)
132:(
117:)
113:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.