Deletion of Eglinton LRT Carhouse

Comment: Puzzlingly, both {{ping|Softlavender}} and {{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} made  explicit assertions that the article does not comply with .  Softlavender and {{ping|K.e.coffman}} both stated the the facility ''"doesn't even exist"'', that it is still in the planning stage, and imply that it may never be built.  I don't know how to respond to these comments without lecturing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: For heaven's sake it doesn't even exist. Proposed to perhaps exist maybe five years from now. Violates . Fails notability -- only passing mentions in local coverage, many of which are not even RS or are not even independent of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: As per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: the seven day period is close to ending.  It's my understanding that closing administrator's mandate is to not merely count noses, but to weigh arguments over their compliance with policy, and on whether they seem well informed, or based on misconceptions.  I'd like to point out that, The Banner voiced ''"delete"'' and merge to Toronto Transit Commission facilities, based on the misconception that the facility was owned or operated by the TTC.  Clearly that merge is inappropriate when the facility is owned by MetroLinx and will be operated by a third party, under contract.  Softlavender, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and K.e.coffman, all based their ''"delete"'' opinions on .  They did so based on the misconception that this facility was still in the planning stage, and might never be built.  The Eglinton Crosstown that will require this facility is over a third of a way towards completion, and billions of dollars have been spent.  Planning, environmental assessment, and plan approval, was completed in 2013 -- over three years ago.  CRYSTAL explicitly says ''"Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."''  I've explained why I think Crystal doesn't apply.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eglinton_LRT_Carhouse&diff=731522097&oldid=731516967 I've asked these contributors to return here, and consider those points, or explain why they continue to favour deletion.  I've also added over half a dozen new references, and other notability factors, since they weighed in.  So, are their arguments ones you think should be discounted?  Finally, if we were to take the nominator at face value, when they wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roncesvalles_Carhouse&diff=731398604&oldid=731363726 ''"You found me out: I'm biased against infrastructure,"'' then this nomination was not motivated by policy, but rather by an unexamined bias
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)