Deletion of Coca Cola Billboard, Kings Cross

Comment: to Kings Cross, New South Wales. Lots of things in a big city are noticeable and get mentioned in the context of someother subject, but that does not mean that an article about them is appropriate. The references are not adequate to show that a the billboard is of enough notability to have a separate article, so it should be mentioned in the article about the neighborhood. . Ref 2 does not satisfy  since it is just a tourism promotional site. The others which are accessible without paying several dollars, just make passing and trivial reference to the billboard and do not satisfy . If reference 1 ($2.50 to view) and ref 5 ($1.50 to view) contain nontrivial coverage, they would help to make the case. Perhaps someone with access to the fee articles could relate ioin the article discussion page what they say that proves notability. It would also help if the "heritage" status was documented better than in the passing reference in one of the references. This is not a vote. Arguments here where people assert that they know how notable something is from their personal knowledge cannot be counted towards proving the notability of the subject. Per  notability is not subjective
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)