Deletion of Haneda Airport Access Line Plan

Comment: per  - The delete arguments above are curiously devoid of any grounding in policy. The only real question here is: is it notable? It clearly is because it has received coverage in multiple reliable sources (which, yes, includes the  the Japan Times, the objections to which -speaking as a former regular reader- aren't justified) over an extended period. See the following: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201902160023.html 1 https://www.railjournal.com/regions/asia/jr-east-plans-new-rail-link-to-tokyo-haneda-airport/ 2 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/02/16/national/jr-east-project-build-three-new-access-lines-tokyos-haneda-airport-begin-may/#.XRXH0-tKhhE 3 https://www.globalairrail.com/news/entry/proposals-to-improve-rail-access-to-haneda-airport 4 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/02/10/national/environmental-test-new-train-link-haneda-begin-spring/#.XRXIP-tKhhE 5
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NEWSORG)

Comment: Unfortunately, a lot of people do use Wikipedia as a travel directory, and having an article on a supposed train line that has apparently been in development hell for close to two decades without any indication in the lead that the name of the line is provisional, or in the title that the line doesn't exist yet and won't exist for a long time. I am not actually opposed to the concept of an article that would be written with more of an "idiot Wikipedia reader" in mind, but this isn't it. Plus, an entire section of the article is based on |the English website of JR-EAST, with the rest mostly based on ''The Japan Times'', a magazine that was originally intended for English-speaking ex-pats in Japan but these days draws almost all of its readership from Japanese people wishing to practice their English reading, and as a consequence readily sacrifices factual accuracy in favour of "fluent English prose": which is to say that Eastmain's claim above that the article "includes in-depth coverage from reliable sources plural in English" is just plain wrong
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)