Deletion of HBS Towers (2nd nomination)

Comment: per nom and . As noted in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HBS_Towers&diff=873922500&oldid=852539183 amends and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HBS_Towers&type=revision&diff=920558552&oldid=920544383 tags I'd applied to this promotional guff over the last few years, this article seems to stand only as an example of why we have  and  guidelines. Frankly I think we need to have a broader look at our  guidelines. As this project is (in my view) cluttered up with a lot of out-dated information on proposed building projects. Many of these fall between the cracks of . Where, probably because newspapers are reliant on advertising revenue from property developers and the like, we often find a reasonable level of coverage of these planned/proposed development projects in what are otherwise independent and reliable sources. But, in reality, the subject might never even be afforded planning permission. And hence barely even exists "in potentia". Not to mention ever existing in reality. In my view,  should probably be applied (in extremis) to these types of subjects. And, even if there does seem to be some coverage of the planned project to the extent that newspapers are republishing the developer's plans and press-releases, we shouldn't necessarily be doing the same. In this case, the article should just be deleted. This project is not improved by hosting an out-of-date press release for a property developer's proposal/daydream
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCRYSTAL||WP:NOTCRYSTAL||WP:NOTADVERT||WP:NBUILDING||WP:SIGCOV||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: At least per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL)