Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eglinton LRT Carhouse
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
— User:Geo, 18:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)