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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 01:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Overly specific subject, unsurprisingly an orphan. If at all, content belongs in probit model, where most of it already is. bender235 ( talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, tentatively. Will return to discuss more, but briefly this is important and quite different in purpose, implementation, applications, theory than simple probit model. Can't be merged there. And why focus on probit aspect; panel data analysis would be arguably more appropriate merge target. It doesn't belong in either though. do ncr am 08:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The subject may or may not be important, but we cannot overload Wikipedia with articles for all these highly technical corner cases. After all, this is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a Handbook for Econometrics with Binary Response Variables. -- bender235 ( talk) 23:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• There's nothing inherently wrong with very specific or highly technical articles, but I can't seem to find significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. When I search for "Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables" (in quotation marks) in Google Scholar and Google Books, I get a grand total of zero hits. A search without quotation marks reveals a few sources that may be useful, but I can't tell if this topic has been the primary subject of any scholarly articles. I will admit, however, I haven't read through the sources cited in this article. Therefore, I am tentatively going to vote in favor of some form of merger, though I am open to being convinced otherwise. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 07:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have no problem with articles on specialized topics, but this article suffers from an overly explicit title. Something like Dynamic probit model would probably be a more useful basis for an article. The Wooldridge estimator for this problem is real and seems adequately referenced. The main problem with the article is that it is unbalanced; Orme and Heckman estimators should also be treated. -- Mark viking ( talk) 23:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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.