Deletion of En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore

Comment: Upon reading "What Wikipedia Is Not", I have to say that the content is (a) a |personal essay (b) a |soapbox, which represents an unbalanced view of en-bloc sales in Singapore. This is clear from the |non-neutral position and rhetoric of the content author. The author has already established his/her feelings on the matter on en-bloc sales on his/her own blog but I don't think Wikipedia should be a further platform to |promote his/her non-neutral views. It represents a very specific perspective on en-bloc sales, especially the advocating of '1-4-1 exchange' which has no |supporting evidence. I would suggest corroborating evidence for statements such as 'the authorities to date have NOT been receptive to proposals for one ADDITIONAL option' (|evidence?), 'Anecdotal accounts corroborate these poll findings' (|evidence?), 'this trend of STATISTICAL PURCHASE DISPLACEMENT BY FOREIGNERS in CCR..is likely a direct consequence of en bloc sales facilitated by such en bloc law' (|source?), 'it could take nearly six months from the date of application' (|reference?), 'Bodyguards were employed' (|reference?), 'Even earlier suggestions by lawyers..to develop a Best Practices and Code of Conduct were not taken up by the authorities' (|reference?) etc. Unless substantial changes are made, the content is not suitable for wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTOPINION||WP:NOTSOAP||WP:NPOV||WP:PROMOTION||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS)