Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downsizing (property)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  13:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Downsizing (property)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor  a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, these two connected articles contain no encyclopaedic information, nor have a potential for any IMO. Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc. — kashmīrī  TALK  22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not every English word is an encyclopedic topic; the sources are quite thin.  As a second choice, redirect to Relocation (personal), but honestly if such a redirect happened then there'd be basically 0 content to port over anyway, since this is just a phrase describing one very specific type of relocation.  SnowFire (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete While an article such as this COULD have merit, this is a DICDEF, perhaps a bit longer than a simple def, but I can't see the need for this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles can be improved. Both articles are just 2 years old. At AfD, we should be judging things based on their potential, not their current state. WP:DEMOLISH, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NODEADLINES ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  Analysis  The concept of "downsizing" property has been studied by numerous peer-reviewed journals. The studies discuss numerous aspects of downsizing:  how downsizing can reduce energy demands  the controversy about the facts around downsizing  the socio-cultural meanings about downsizing and the (in)voluntariness of downsizing  downsizing behaviours among older Australians  recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency in the United States  downsizing as a policy goal in England </li> <li>the factors that increase or decrease the chances of downsizing </li> <li>the reproduction of gender norms through downsizing </li> <li>downsizing's appeal to Finnish residents with certain characteristics </li> <li>the psychological effects of downsizing </li> </ol>The subject passes Notability. There is enough information about the socio-cultural, psychological, environmental, political/policy aspects of downsizing to support an encyclopedic article about the topic such that this would not violate What Wikipedia is not or What Wikipedia is not. The current article is well-sourced and does not violate any policies. It discusses the reasons people downsize, the difficulties that come with downsizing, and how people who downsize need to dispose of personal items after moving the basic fundamental items. This is encyclopedic information. The article can be expanded and improved. Per Editing policy and Deletion policy, the article should be kept. The nominator wrote, "Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc.". There are articles about walking, eating, personal life, and relocation (personal).  Sources  <ol> <li> The article notes: "Residential energy consumption is one of the main contributors to CO2 emissions in the UK. One strategy aimed at reducing emissions is to increase retrofitting rates of buildings. In this paper, an alternative approach is discussed and its potential impact on energy use assessed, that of downsizing (moving to smaller homes)." </li> <li> The book notes: "In this chapter we will document and model the housing transitions of the elderly in two countries—England and the United States. One important form of these transitions involves downsizing, but there remains considerable controversy even about what the facts are about downsizing at older ages." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "This study analyzes socio-cultural meanings about downsizing as well as norms about dwelling size. The study analyzes naturally occurring, cultural texts (media texts and corporate communications about small-sized dwellings). The study offers a view on how the meaning of downsizing is negotiated, the (in)voluntariness of downsizing emerging as the main point to be negotiated." </li> <li> The executive summary notes: "Much urban policy is premised on the assumption that an ageing population will require more diverse (implying smaller) housing stock into which older people will (or should) downsize. However, little is known about older people’s downsizing behaviours (Judd et al. 2012)." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "This article examines some of the trends in single-family house building in the United States and provides recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "This paper looks into this mismatch between observed housing choices and the construction of downsizing as a policy goal. It suggests that theoretically speaking, the very notion of downsizing is problematic and difficult to define and is an over-simplistic concept which in reality applies to a heterogeneous group of people." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "At the same time, very few life changing events immediately lead a homeowner to become a renter, although they do influence the decision to downsize or consumer home equity. Finally, living next to one's children lowers the probability of becoming a renter or downsizing, and having richer children increases the probability of downsizing and thereby consuming one's housing wealth." </li> <li> The article notes: "For this circumstance, the social relations of gender offer solutions for possession distribution and downsizing labor. Between male and female, who does what and who gets what may not be equitable, but the reliance on gender at least expedites the work." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "Downsizing appeals to residents with lower incomes who live alone, and who have been in their current houses longer." </li> <li> The abstract notes: "This article examines how key contours of the experiences of place during residential downsizing are infused with unexpectedly heightened awareness and cultivation of one's sense of place in multiple timeframes." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow downsizing to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>

Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging, who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's blatant CANVASSING. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  15:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably appropriate per Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that there have been no previous deletion discussions on this topic. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  17:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You PRODDED with Wikipedia should not be turned into a dictionary nor a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, this article contains no encyclopaedic information of any value to the reader. I DEPRODDED with edit summary improve, don't delete flawed articles. You can't seriously argue that's not a deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like arguing about the obvious. You did not comment on the content, and you were not pinged because of your knowledge of the subject matter. You're just in the business of mass PROD removal, as your edit history demonstrates, and you were pinged only because Cunard felt you would support their standpoint. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Responding to your message on my talk page and here. Canvassing says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the Canvassing guideline. I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets notability standard. Clear potential for development beyond DICDEF. Yes, we do have articles on walking, eating, living, moving house. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable per Cunard. Also the nomination rationale is weak, wish you checked the pages for walking, eating, living, and moving homes pages. Merko (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Cunard. Besides, downsizing is more than a dictionary definition. There's a lot you could write about downsizing. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. Because downsizing is more than a dictionary definition. CastJared (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard and upsize (article). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. ResonantDistortion 16:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.