Deletion of World’s largest all beer can house

Comment: Appears to fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: First reference is the very definition of , 2nd source established the festival, not the house. I doubt that the record setter source is , 4th and 5th sources are local coverage (significant but misdated across less than a month), 6th source is a repeat of the 4th, 7th source is not a source but a note that a source may once have existed, The last source is the only one that gives me pause. So referring to , Criterion 1 doesn't apply, this isn't a breaking event. Criteria 2 however is the one that applies, I can't find any reference to this that wasn't made within 2 months of the house being built. so not sure how enduring it is. Noteworthy is that http://inhabitat.com/beer-can-house-texas-home-made-with-50000-cans-now-a-designated-landmark/ this reference refers to a beer can house made from more cans that has been designated a landmark in Texas, which would dispute the claim of record holding or limit it to largest Australian or largest not upcycled etc. ''although further reading suggests it has a house inside it holding it up''. More sources I found seem to refer to the Houston house than the Canberra house. I don't think  would apply if this article were sufficiently sourced to reliable sources. I don't think  applies as this isn't about a person but an event itself. I think the relevant policy is  and it fails, not significant coverage, minimal RS. Comes a little close to . Maybe Merge with Beer can pyramid, as that article could stnad for other notable beer can structures. Maybe merge into the Darwin Beer Can Regatta, as an event at one of those events. But it certainly isn't worthy of its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:PEACOCK||WP:ONEVENT||WP:GNG||WP:IINFO)

Comment: Article needs rename, we don't normally title things by "world's largest", it looks like roadside marketing (). There is no reliable body to determine since Guinness doesn't have a category. RecordSetter appears to be crowd sourced. Not saying this information can't be in the article but the title should be scaled back
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:PEACOCK)