Deletion of Croydon Vision 2020

Comment: No doubt the sources are mainly local to Croydon, but I see others (even a non-English one) https://www.eliberico.com/croydon-acogera-segundo-edificio-mas-alto-londres/http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2018/04/home-truths-croydons-struggle-to-build-affordable-housing/https://books.google.com/books?id=QXQ4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA198&dq=%22Croydon+Vision+2020%22#v=onepage&q=%22Croydon%20Vision%202020%22&f=falsehttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-national-trust-is-betraying-its-proud-heritage-2pbkf5rff and various projects of its developments are also covered, e.g. on the Whitgift development https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15678692https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41988765https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/24/croydon-redevelopment-retail-hammersons-westfieldhttps://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/westfield-furious-at-setback-for-croydon-centre-bid-7614939.html. I believe it should satisfy  with the large number of local sources (local sources are not necessarily non-RS) and some of the other sources. If there are parts that sound promotional, it is a  issue, and AfD should not be used to tidy up article since the article is not unambiguously for promotional purpose only
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SURMOUNTABLE)