Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haneda Airport Access Line Plan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Haneda Airport Access Line Plan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Way too soon, the subject isn't expected to be completed until 2029, and JR East has only just begun environmental assessment prior to the initiation of construction. Moreover, JR East has been "considering" this line since 2013. I don't think there's much that we could write about this subject that wouldn't be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. signed,Rosguill talk 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The project doesn't need to be finished to be notable. The article already includes in-depth coverage from reliable sources in English, and further coverage is available in Japanese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete 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. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG - 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 WP:NEWSORG the Japan Times, the objections to which -speaking as a former regular reader- aren't justified) over an extended period. See the following: 1 2 3 4 5 FOARP (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not being due for completion until 2029 is not automatically a valid reason for deletion. Nor is "being in development hell for two decades".  What is important, as others have said, is that the development is discussed in sources.  Reporting plans discussed in sources is not WP:CRYSTAL.  As for the ridiculous argument that "idiot Wikipedia readers" use Wikipedia as a travel guide and might mistake this for an existing line, not only does that have no basis in policy, but the word "proposed" right upfront in the first section should give that fact away to even the stupidest reader. SpinningSpark 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.