I think there are multiple layers to this one, because I agree that this has nothing to do with translation style. Total red herring.

We have to acknowledge some other things too, though. Firstly, the translators are not trying to change the referent, who is the King of Babylon (which is explicit from verse 4, and that one is unchanged). What they're attempting to do is to remove of Latinism that's not in the original version, and strictly speaking, they're correct that it's not in the original, as far as we can tell.

What the academics ignore is reception. The text critics are split on whether they believe in inspiration at all, but the ones who do only believe in autographic inspiration. This is necessarily an incorrect view because it's epistemically impossible to know what an autograph looks like one way or the other. Inspiration is not something that happens when the text is written, and then stops. Inspiration continues through the preservation of the Bible in history, and it's on those grounds that Lucifer is correct. Isaiah 14 is universally understood by Christians to actually refer to the Devil, and through the preservation of the Latin by the Holy Ghost, and subsequently, its reference by the 16th and 17th century translators, this correct interpretation has marked the actual text with a seal of accuracy.

Lucifer is the reading that the English speaking people have inherited. Ultimately, the only reason to change it is if you don't believe it's about Satan.