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 keep. Merging was supported but no target was suggested, so it's non-actionable at an AfD, but can be discussed on the talk page afterwards. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 01:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Pied-à-terre

Pied-à-terre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Perhaps the classic example of a dictionary definition masquerading as an article. E Eng 13:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

<added later> I guess it wasn't obvious that I don't see GNG-qualifying sources anywhere. To repeat the analogy I give in the discussion below, if there were news articles discussing how households with more than one dog can be a neighborhood nuisance, and the city thinks about enacting a special tax on anything beyond one dog per home, that doesn't mean we should have an article called "Second dog", even if there's a catchy name for second dogs like "Doggie deux". E Eng 12:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per WP:DICDEF: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." The pied-à-terre article is a concept, and the article can be expanded with further examples, especially with sources from the corresponding Dutch article. SportingFlyer talk 23:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Uh huh. The Dutch Wikipedia entry reads in its entirety (in automated translation):

A pied-à-terre (French for foot to the ground ) is a second home, usually located in a different city and usually smaller than the primary residence in the municipality where one is registered. A residence where one occasionally stays, or a few days a week, because of work while living elsewhere.

In the Paris property market, mini-apartments, sometimes less than 8 m², are marketed as pied-à-terre for people living in the province and working or studying in Paris during the week.

In Amsterdam, a home must be above a certain rental value that is designated as pied-à-terre. If an owner of a pied-à-terre allows his / her child to occupy the house, the child must register with the municipality. [1]

Apart from students, politicians also use a pied-à-terre. Many ministers and MPs have a pied-à-terre in The Hague while they remain registered in their own municipality. [2] Pied-à-terre also occurs in the world of entertainment, for example with television personalities who have a pied-à-terre in Amsterdam while living elsewhere. [3] [4]

In 2014, the former home of King Willem Alexander , the Noordeinde 66 building in The Hague, was adapted to serve as a pied-à-terre for Princess Beatrix. [5] She lives at the Drakensteyn estate in the municipality of Baarn. [6]

Source

Eerenbeemt, Marc van den A staccato life in the city : De Volkskrant 25 August 2010 Consulted 13 July 2015

References

1. Website City of Amsterdam: May I keep a second home (pied à terre) in Amsterdam?

2. Pied-á-terre in The Hague

3. My Amsterdam pied-à-terre

4. Quote 29 March 2015: The new director of Stage Holding buys a pied à terre in Amsterdam

5. Questions and answers about the budget of the King (HI) 2015 of 3 October 2014

6. De Volkskrant 20 June 2014 The renovation of The Hague pied-à-terre Beatrix costs almost a million

Perhaps you could share with us which of these tidbits and sources you foresee being used for this projected expansion here at enwp? Would it be the Amsterdam registration requirement? Princess Beatrix's address? E Eng 23:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The social and legal uses of the concept in Paris, Amsterdam, New York, et cetera. New York proposed a tax on it [1] and it appears it's not always allowed in New York City as per this source: [2] It's clearly a social concept, an expandable article, and not something that's better off at Wiktionary, which is the only reason you proposed deletion. SportingFlyer talk 00:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I've gone ahead and copy-edited the article and added references about the social context of pied-à-terres. SportingFlyer talk 00:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I wish I could say I thought you were kidding, but I fear you're not. E Eng 02:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm under no obligation to agree with you and really don't appreciate your condescending tone, which adds nothing to the AfD discussion. SportingFlyer talk 03:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

For "social context" you added [3] a real estate broker's blog post as a source, and the statement -- unsourced -- that Pied-à-terres can be controversial, especially in cities where affordable housing is an issue. Then you used a primary-source municipal webpage from the city of Amsterdam to conclude that "In Amsterdam, pied-à-terres are regulated", and give your own unintelligible interpretation of what those regulations are; what in the world does it mean for a property to be "not rented out, and ... above a certain rental threshold"? Do you know what a "home withdrawal" is? It's laughable. E Eng 04:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The first one's called a topic sentence. I've edited both sentences for clarity. There's nothing wrong with the blog post source, especially because other sources show notability. Furthermore, in making this AfD about me and my edits and not about the topic itself, you're being rather uncivil. SportingFlyer talk 05:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

There's nothing wrong with the blog post source -- see WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOG. It's like if some cities had a tax on people who kept more than one dog, and therefore we should have an article on second dogs (perhaps called "Doggie deux"). E Eng 11:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The blog in this instance is run by StreetEasy, a Zillow-owned real estate/apartment website. While probably not subject to the same editorial content as the New York Times, it is more reliable than something someone wrote on WordPress. Furthermore, it doesn't matter for WP:GNG as other sources show notability, and WP:GNG wasn't argued as a reason for deletion in the first place. SportingFlyer talk 12:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Really??? A local real estate agent's blogpost on a Zillow-owned real estate/apartment website is a reliable source? Since apparently I have to make the GNG concern explicit, I've done so back at the top. E Eng 12:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The blog post was written by a journalist, not a "local real estate agent": [4] Furthermore the New York Times articles (including [5], not in the article yet), Forbes article, and [6] demonstrate the concept passes WP:GNG easily. SportingFlyer talk 12:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

You're right about the journalist (I must have clicked the wrong link) but the fact remains that Zillow is hardly any kind of reliable source. For the rest, the "second dog" argument still applies. While we here: you really need a secondary source for the Amsterdam statement (and the statement needs to be made intelligible) or it will have to go. E Eng 16:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

This is the first time I've seen much less been involved in an edit war with an AfD nominator over a WP:HEY. I have no problem giving due weight to the Zillow blog under the guidelines at WP:QS, and we don't need it to establish notability for purposes of this AfD as plenty of other sources exist. The Amsterdam statement is a secondary source but not an independent source (as I'm sure it restates the local bylaw, which would be the primary source - even confirmed here they have bylaws: [7]), and I did my best to make an accurate, good faith translation, even if the first attempt wasn't the clearest. City and State NY was tagged as "reliable source?" when I have no doubts about their credibility: [8]. I've also updated the sentence about Paris. SportingFlyer talk 22:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

There's no edit war; I've simply tagged OR and PRIMARY sources, removed statements not found in the sources, and so on. The "Second dog" argument still applies. Just because the "concept" of a second-home-in-town has a catchy French term for it, and that term has been used now and them (as terms will be, now and then) in articles talking about second homes, doesn't mean there's anything constituting an encyclopedia here. It's just an incoherent collection of news factoids cobbled together under the meaningless rubric of "attracted discussion during the 2010s". E Eng 05:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, we disagree about the OR and PRIMARY sourcing, but it doesn't look like any more words here will solve the impasse. This article is the urban companion to our Holiday cottage article, has been covered in major news sources in different languages per WP:GNG, and deserves to be kept. SportingFlyer talk 06:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The fact that you've scoured the earth and come up with two municipal regulations, a statement of the obvious fact the "pied-à-terres cause a reduction in the overall housing supply", and the observation that there's three blocks in Manhattan where more than half of apartments are second homes make my argument better than I ever could. This is a collection of disjointed factoids. E Eng 14:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I haven't "scoured the earth," I've cleaned up the article a bit (it needed it) and added a couple obvious sources. You're making three arguments: it fails WP:DICDEF (it doesn't); it fails WP:GNG (it doesn't); and WP:IDONTLIKEIT (obvious from the fact you're getting into content and not sources - deletion is not cleanup.) It's a valid geographic topic and at worst, the well-sourced content should be merged somewhere, but that's not needed since the proper place is already in this article. SportingFlyer talk 22:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Well if you're saying there are more sources that aren't in the article, you certainly haven't put your best foot forward (meilleur pied en avant). E Eng 23:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• I want to merge or move this somewhere more general, but I'm not sure where.

The term may or may not pass GNG, but in the bigger picture it's relatively new jargon in a particular dialect for a special case of a wider phenomenon, that of non-resident and foreign ownership of real estate for investment purposes. This wider phenomenon, in turn, seems to be a pretty important, widely-discussed, and encyclopedia-worthy issue: New Zealand recently banned it [9], it's an issue in London with Sadiq Khan threatening to do the same [10] [11], and there's a bunch of relevant law, enough to write a review about it all the way back in 1978 and a whole book in 2013. We don't seem to have this content anywhere on WP at the moment; vacation property might conceivably be stretched to include it, but that redirects to the manifestly unsuitable holiday cottage.

Overall, I think the best solution would be a move to Non-resident ownership of real estate, accompanied by an expansion to include the material on other things that fit in this category (e.g. foreign investment in agricultural land) that seem to be regularly discussed alongside "pied-à-terre"-related material in the highest-quality sources. FourViolas ( talk) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Sure enough, here comes FourViolas with his peacemaking and nonviolence and compromise and respecting all creatures great and small and so on. What kind a world would this be if everyone was like this? E Eng 01:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ FourViolas: I generally support this - I don't really mind where this sits as long as it's kept. The only problem I have is the definition of non-resident and foreign ownership of real estate for investment purposes is much broader than the definition of a pied-à-terre, which is a particular definition of a type of second home (which this journal article discusses: [12]). SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, you're right, my category is more than a slight generalization. I considered second home as a merge target, but that's currently a redirect to pied-à-terre, holiday cottage, and an album of dubious notability. Maybe a better alternative would be to gather together information on second residences urban, rural, and in-between in a single article ( holiday cottage already has lots of material not really relevant to cottages meant for holidaying), and include legal aspects in a section there or in a new and more general article. FourViolas ( talk) 00:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I think this is a ripe area for cleanup (but not deletion) - holiday cottage is a very British term, for instance, and was a move proposal without any input back in 2013. As an aside, I cleaned up the Second home disambiguation page, and added a link there to Dacha. SportingFlyer talk 01:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge. I came here from a note at EEng's talk page. It seems to me that there is an underlying architectural concept here, so it should be possible to revise the content so that it is about the concept, its history, and commentary about it, instead of about the definition of the word. A superficial look at the Google Books and Google Scholar links above seems to indicate that there has been a lot of commentary about the idea. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Merge in Canada we have the concept of a second home, which may or may not be a vacation home or "cottage". This is slightly different. It lines up with the "single occupant unit" micro condos being built in the expensive Vancouver market. There is a topic here but it needs expansion. Legacypac ( talk) 03:19, 17 October 2018 (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.