Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replicas of the White House


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Replicas of the White House

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't believe either of these mini white houses warrant an entire article. I nominate them on the grounds of notability.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

These seem worthy of keeping to me. People might be interested in visiting them to see the layout of rooms as you can't easily visit the real White House. Also a resource for filmmakers who need small-scale pictures they can place other things around - and anyone doing a school project on either. Anrawel  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also Articles for deletion/The Miniature White House. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not sourced at all, but miniature recreations of famous landmarks usually are tourist attractions, and have a measure of notoriety if they are described in books on the subject. Something of this nature would not be appropriate in an article about the White House itself, but I think that it's good to treat these as part of a (sourced) article.  Otherwise, merge this to a page about replicas in general. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Could use some sources, but appears notable.   I reformatted article as well to read better, I think. --Milowent (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an interesting topic, could easily be sourced. Dovi (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, could be sourced. Zocky | picture popups 23:03, 7 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.