Deletion of Celestial Heights

Comment: It has received very significant coverage by ''The Standard'' http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=1&art_id=65702&sid=18892055&con_type=1http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=1&art_id=65973&sid=18985022&con_type=1http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=2&art_id=66269&sid=19047000&con_type=1&d_str=20080523&fc=8, thus easily passing the core criteria of .  Even the http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200811/14/P200811140161.htm press release by the Government of Hong Kong is valid as its independent of the subject and in-depth
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: This is a fine and notable in and of itself with notability shown by sources.  This not a , other than the fact that all development in Hong Kong is land-leased, planned, developed, and managed corporately
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Fails . I read the links in the article and provided by Oakshade above, and they are just the fluff you find in the business section of every newspaper. They confirm it exists, is big, and cost a lot of money (but none of the sources say "one of biggest" or "one of most expensive" or similar wording to indicate |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:N)