Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions


 * 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 speedy userfy. Author says on talk that they need time to develop the article because of real-world time commitments, and has expressed interest in working in a sandbox. Commenters below have provided references showing that these are important terms of art in the real estate field. Moving to their userspace so it can develop without being under the gun.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * note also:
 * note also:

Delete, it appears to be O.r. and it seems to be confirmed by talk opage comments Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems that the term gets used in certain real estate appraisal documents. As can be seen here, it does not seem that the terms are always found together, nor in that order; as part of the seminar, appraisers are taught the difference between "extraordinary assumptions" and "hypothetical conditions". All it really means that if one is going to appraise some real estate higher than it normally should be, one has to justify this explicitly so that for every hypothetical condition, an extraordinary assumption must be made. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly right. A hypothetical condition is an assumption you know not to be true or contrary to reality. Any analysis or discussion results based on a hypothetical condition are therefore also not reflective of reality and under professional ethics and standards must be communicated in such a way that they are not interpreted as being true.  Extraordinary assumptions simply assume facts that could be in doubt, and professional standards and ethics require that you have a reasonable basis for making the assumption, but you can complete the analysis as long as your communication of the results does not imply that you are making a representation that the facts that are in doubt are actually true.  (Actually there is another distinction between extraordinary assumptions and ordinary assumptions, I thought about expanding the article to include all three at a later date, but it's already being deleted, so I won't bother.)  --KTrimble (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be deleted, it could be merged to Extraordinary assumptions. Or you could ask for it to be put in the article Incubator. I also note that it existed for three minutes before being nominated for deletion. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What the talk page comments actually say is that (a) sources will be forthcoming, and (b) these are concepts in the field of real estate appraisal. And that's borne out by the sources that turn up when one looks:
 * Uncle G (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What I find lacking is the combination of the two. We have Extraordinary assumptions If we have these as two seperate articles covering both terms (I couldn't find the Hypothetical Conditions) we need to be able to find how those terms are linked. And when one actually looks I didn't tag the other article for deletion despite no sources''. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't read the sources cited. Start with Schram. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment i wish the creator of these articles would ask to take them back to his sandbox, or the article Incubator. and no, you dont write an article first, then provide references, esp. 3 articles, all linked, with no refs. esp. if the language is so broad, when the references, if they were put into the article, point to only one specific field. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would say trim back to a stub, saying these are real estate terms, and let them be built up.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced, OR andy (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please follow the discussion that you are adding to. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bizarre concatenation of unrelated ideas, an essay of original research: In a discussion of creationism or evolution, assuming that God does or does not exist. .... Applicability to Real Estate Appraisal.  The swinging back and forth between alternate history, metaphysics, and the recurring refrain of real estate appraisal suggests a motive, at any rate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy all. This article (these articles?) is definitely going somewhere, as shown by UncleG's references above, but it may take more than a week to get there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy all. (By All, i mean this along with Extraordinary assumptions and Hypothetical condition) Creator KTrimble is a newbie just learning the ropes.  It appears he may have embarked on the creation of useful articles here but is being caught in the suspected O.R. trap and unreferenced trap.  I have corresponded with him via my talk page to try to help him out.  It is kind of surprising that in late 2009 we don't have an article on what a "hypothetical condition" is!  In terms of real estate and business valuation appraisal (at least), it is clear that an article could and probably really should exist on it.  It has to start somewhere.  In 2001, the current huge article for Ant started with the word STUB. --Milowent (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and delete it The consensus seems to be that this whole subject is too minor or bizarre to be included, which seems odd as there are entire seminars out there that do nothing but deal with the distinction between these two concepts. I makes me wonder how or why all of the inane undocumented crap on WP survives and this article is causing so much heartburn.  Maybe the problem is that the sources aren't cited yet.  Even though there are dozens of potential sources to cite, they aren't going to get put on here.  I am a working professional and have only a couple of hours every once in a while to work on something like this.  I am not going to waste it.  I spent maybe a couple of hours last night creating this article, I made one minor edit a few seconds later, and it had a banner to be deleted already.  I spent the next several hours whining about it, reading the talk pages of everybody involved, etc.  Now I am writing this the next morning. I am already way over budget on time on this project, and it is nowhere near being in good form.  Citing the dozens of potential references will take a few hours which I originally planned to do in conjunction with documenting other possible related articles after I learned how to do proper citations (which will also take some time, probably a few hours), which I might not be able to get to within a week. I also envisioned a major rewrite to expand on examples, add a couple of other concepts, etc., which in addition to documentation I expected to do over a period of weeks, letting the article evolve, hopefully with the collaboration of the community.  I admit that the article needs more work which will take some time, but I am not interested in making that kind of investment if the whole thing is just going to be deleted because it is a minor, bizarre, or unnoteworthy subject.  One suggestion was that the whole article be taken back into a sandbox.  That was my original plan.  But I see now that is not practical.  I am not going to spend dozens of hours putting any major articles into a final form with citations and everything and trying to anticipate everybody's viewpoints on the subject and then roll it out into the real world if it is just going to be deleted in the first five minutes. I was under the distinct impression that you could get an article into a working form in a sandbox and then roll it out live and let it evolve and build with the input and collaboration of the entire community. According to the welcome pages, the place for these kinds of discussions are the talk pages, and that collaboration is part of what WP is supposed to be all about.  My options are to work on it further or abandon it.  In this environment, I have spent all the time on it that I am willing, so I am abandoning it.  The banner says I can't completely delete it, so I trimmed it back, as suggested, to a stub with basic definitions and something that said it was important to appraisal and might be important to other fields.  I would document it, but why bother.  Somebody might want to go ahead and trim it further to just the definitions, but trimmed to this form or to just the definitions, it's useless without explanation and should probably be deleted.  --KTrimble (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what the article needs, most importantly, is focus. If this is a notable concept in real estate appraising, opening sections with a discussion about the existence of God seems slightly out of place.  Please don't take this wrong; but when an article moves from abstract and metaphysical subjects to real estate and back again, it makes the resulting article look like it's intended to promote a real-estate business while pretending to be something else.  Editors who patrol the Articles for Deletion page may have a bit of weary suspicion of the various ways people have tried to insert advertisements for their own businesses into the encyclopedia, and the current text probably raised a number of red flags.   I was under the distinct impression that you could get an article into a working form in a sandbox and then roll it out live and let it evolve and build with the input and collaboration of the entire community.  This is true.  However, the sandbox is user space, not encyclopedia space.  This is why several other editors suggested that we "userfy" this text - jargon for "moving it to one of your user pages" where it can be improved until you think it's ready for "prime time".  My personal suggestion would be to take a look at the real estate appraisal page, and see if you can see a point for insertion of your subject there.  That article is reasonably well written, and can serve as well as any as a model for how to write up this subject.  Try to include at least one, hopefully several, published sources.  And then, that article could become a hook for your new text.  It also wants a better title; "extraordinary assumptions" and "hypothetical conditions" have meanings outside of real estate; a title that actually related these subjects to appraisals would be better.  If I can help further, please let me know - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (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.
 * Please follow the discussion that you are adding to. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bizarre concatenation of unrelated ideas, an essay of original research: In a discussion of creationism or evolution, assuming that God does or does not exist. .... Applicability to Real Estate Appraisal.  The swinging back and forth between alternate history, metaphysics, and the recurring refrain of real estate appraisal suggests a motive, at any rate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy all. This article (these articles?) is definitely going somewhere, as shown by UncleG's references above, but it may take more than a week to get there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy all. (By All, i mean this along with Extraordinary assumptions and Hypothetical condition) Creator KTrimble is a newbie just learning the ropes.  It appears he may have embarked on the creation of useful articles here but is being caught in the suspected O.R. trap and unreferenced trap.  I have corresponded with him via my talk page to try to help him out.  It is kind of surprising that in late 2009 we don't have an article on what a "hypothetical condition" is!  In terms of real estate and business valuation appraisal (at least), it is clear that an article could and probably really should exist on it.  It has to start somewhere.  In 2001, the current huge article for Ant started with the word STUB. --Milowent (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and delete it The consensus seems to be that this whole subject is too minor or bizarre to be included, which seems odd as there are entire seminars out there that do nothing but deal with the distinction between these two concepts. I makes me wonder how or why all of the inane undocumented crap on WP survives and this article is causing so much heartburn.  Maybe the problem is that the sources aren't cited yet.  Even though there are dozens of potential sources to cite, they aren't going to get put on here.  I am a working professional and have only a couple of hours every once in a while to work on something like this.  I am not going to waste it.  I spent maybe a couple of hours last night creating this article, I made one minor edit a few seconds later, and it had a banner to be deleted already.  I spent the next several hours whining about it, reading the talk pages of everybody involved, etc.  Now I am writing this the next morning. I am already way over budget on time on this project, and it is nowhere near being in good form.  Citing the dozens of potential references will take a few hours which I originally planned to do in conjunction with documenting other possible related articles after I learned how to do proper citations (which will also take some time, probably a few hours), which I might not be able to get to within a week. I also envisioned a major rewrite to expand on examples, add a couple of other concepts, etc., which in addition to documentation I expected to do over a period of weeks, letting the article evolve, hopefully with the collaboration of the community.  I admit that the article needs more work which will take some time, but I am not interested in making that kind of investment if the whole thing is just going to be deleted because it is a minor, bizarre, or unnoteworthy subject.  One suggestion was that the whole article be taken back into a sandbox.  That was my original plan.  But I see now that is not practical.  I am not going to spend dozens of hours putting any major articles into a final form with citations and everything and trying to anticipate everybody's viewpoints on the subject and then roll it out into the real world if it is just going to be deleted in the first five minutes. I was under the distinct impression that you could get an article into a working form in a sandbox and then roll it out live and let it evolve and build with the input and collaboration of the entire community. According to the welcome pages, the place for these kinds of discussions are the talk pages, and that collaboration is part of what WP is supposed to be all about.  My options are to work on it further or abandon it.  In this environment, I have spent all the time on it that I am willing, so I am abandoning it.  The banner says I can't completely delete it, so I trimmed it back, as suggested, to a stub with basic definitions and something that said it was important to appraisal and might be important to other fields.  I would document it, but why bother.  Somebody might want to go ahead and trim it further to just the definitions, but trimmed to this form or to just the definitions, it's useless without explanation and should probably be deleted.  --KTrimble (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what the article needs, most importantly, is focus. If this is a notable concept in real estate appraising, opening sections with a discussion about the existence of God seems slightly out of place.  Please don't take this wrong; but when an article moves from abstract and metaphysical subjects to real estate and back again, it makes the resulting article look like it's intended to promote a real-estate business while pretending to be something else.  Editors who patrol the Articles for Deletion page may have a bit of weary suspicion of the various ways people have tried to insert advertisements for their own businesses into the encyclopedia, and the current text probably raised a number of red flags.   I was under the distinct impression that you could get an article into a working form in a sandbox and then roll it out live and let it evolve and build with the input and collaboration of the entire community.  This is true.  However, the sandbox is user space, not encyclopedia space.  This is why several other editors suggested that we "userfy" this text - jargon for "moving it to one of your user pages" where it can be improved until you think it's ready for "prime time".  My personal suggestion would be to take a look at the real estate appraisal page, and see if you can see a point for insertion of your subject there.  That article is reasonably well written, and can serve as well as any as a model for how to write up this subject.  Try to include at least one, hopefully several, published sources.  And then, that article could become a hook for your new text.  It also wants a better title; "extraordinary assumptions" and "hypothetical conditions" have meanings outside of real estate; a title that actually related these subjects to appraisals would be better.  If I can help further, please let me know - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (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.