Deletion of Highgrove Luxury Condominiums

Comment: and '''Keep'''. In its present state the article content is no longer promotional and adequately establishes notability. However, the article title remains |non-neutral and must be changed
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The article is still a promotional brochure contributed almost exclusively by an experienced editor sailing under a false flag. All the 3 so-called sources for notability (including the NYT's -Real Estate section) do not qualify as RS here for the reason that it is established industry practice to get "editorial coverage" in these publications against paid advertisements. The core of  is reliable 3rd party sources with a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments". None of these essential qualities are evident in the sources cited - who are content with peddling puffery
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: and '''Rename'''. Per above. Three NYT articles about its construction and impact, which include the kind of details that make for an interesting Wikipedia article. And...reporters and editors and publications always choose what to include and exclude...isn't that the judgment, credibility and oversight needed to meet ? I didn't see anything in the articles that indicated they were advertorials or unbalanced, and the NYT's ethical policies also apply to freelancers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)