Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Miniature 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 (NAC).Dr. Meh 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Miniature 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)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also Articles for deletion/Replicas of the White House. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this can be mentioned in an article about miniature replicas of famous buildings, but I don't see enough that it merits its own page. Unfortunately, this is an article that suffers greatly from the lack of an image that would make it more interesting, which is too bad.  One would think that the people who created the miniature would want to show it off, but as often as not, groups insist on permission.  If kept, throw in a stock picture of the White House and add the caption "it looks like this, only smaller". Mandsford (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing in WP:Notability which calls for exclusion of something which has significant coverage, over several decades, in multiple reliable and independent sources, just because some editors don't think it is important enough to have an article. This 1/12 scale model, described recently in American Profile, has been reported by newspapers all over the U.S. since 1977, per Google News archive. There is coverage from 1977 to the present(much behind paywall). See Pittsburgh Post Gazette(1983) which says it is 60 feet by 20 feet, and took 200,000 hours to build, starting in 1961. It includes rooms not open to the public and not included on tourist maps of the building. By 1983 it had been exhibited in all 50 states. It weighs 10 tons per Chicago Tribune (1996), and by then had cost nearly $1 million for materials and transportation.. Washington Post (1992) said it got updated seasonal decorations, and was exhibited at the National Museum of American History. The Atlanta Journal (1996) said it had clocks that tick and chimneys that smoke. In sum, there are 83 references with significant coverage in Google News archive, from at least 1977, 1978, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, and 2008, clearly not just reprints of the same wire service story or press release. Google book search shows a 1994 book about it published by Norton  with creator Zweiful's cooperation, and 5 other instances of book coverage of unknown extent (snippet views). The Gerald Ford Library site says it is "Considered to be one of the world's great miniature houses," that it has been exhibited at the Smithsonian and the Kennedy and Reagan libraries, and that it has been "hailed by presidents, first ladies and the general public as a masterpiece in the art of miniature." Americanheritage.com says it is listed by Guiness Book of World Records as "the world's largest dollhouse," though its builder denies it is a dollhouse. This is not some random replica haphazardly built and little noted. It is a work of art. WP:N is abundantly satisfied. Edison (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Clearly notable, although the article itself needs to be improved. Borock (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kepp - Edison's excellent work could be copied and pasted and the article would be better. Thanks for doing that bit of homework! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Edison above, there seem to be plenty of sources. Scog (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added some of the sources to the article. --Milowent (talk) 15:41, 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.