Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coca Cola Billboard, Kings Cross


 * 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. 

Result was Keep. &mdash; Caknuck 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Coca Cola Billboard, Kings Cross
Non notable landmark, possible Coke promotion. Esenihc 11:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  Esenihc 11:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the sign is a notable landmark in Sydney Bandwagonman 11:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable landmark as shown by references and heritage listing. Rimmeraj 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple references for notable heritage landmark. The article isn't worded promotionally for Coke either. Article could do with a few more incoming links, however. --Canley 07:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep Per keep comments. Article is worded correctly, factually cited, is not advertising a brand product or service, and is about a notable heritage land mark in it's area. There's no WP policy you could possibly cite that would justify a deletion of this article. Thewinchester (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per WP:SNOW. JRG 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Did the nominator read the article and associated references first?  Or just nominate based on the name of the article? -- Chuq (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, prominent landmark, area is heritage listed, article is well-sourced. Euryalus 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this sign or the area actually listed in the Australian Heritage Register? I've tried searching the Australian Heritage database and I haven't found it.  If it's listed, then I'd suggest keeping the article with no further argument.  Otherwise, I think more of an argument for a local landmark would be in order.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Australian Heritage Register only records buildings and structures whose heritage is significant on a national level. There are other registers in Australia that record heritage at a state, regional or local level as well. In other countries, many of the landmarks that have significance at a state or regional level would undoubtedly qualify for a WP article. This is a Sydney icon and the article is more than justified in staying. JRG 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I was curious more than anything, since the article said it was heritage-listed.  And I can agree that billboards are landmarks, like this Grain Belt Beer sign which greets travelers on Hennepin Avenue in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota -- even though Grain Belt is no longer brewed in the city.  Since there's really no place to merge this sign into another article, I'm voting keep on this one.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge 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 WP:A 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 WP:N. 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 WP:N notability is not subjective. Edison 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and sourced. Acalamari 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep- Very notable, locations are always notable in someway. Eaomatrix 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, it's pretty notable, for a billboard. Lankiveil 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. It is a well-known landmark in the area and there are plenty of sources for it. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - A notable and listed landmark. Billboards can be notable and this one is.  And I just noticed the nom's very first edit was this AfD ... unless it's a sock of course. --Oakshade 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, one of, if not the, most desirable billboards in Australia. Another RS to demonstrate notability: . A comparable article is Mail Pouch Tobacco Barn. John Vandenberg 09:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment while I still believe this billboard is notable enough for inclusion as a landmark, it is not in fact listed as a heritage item at a Federal (Australian Heritage Register), State or local level (State and local listings at www.heritage.nsw.gov.au). The article appears to be incorrect on this point. Euryalus 05:13, 5 May 2007 (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.