Deletion of A Place With No Name (3rd nomination)

Comment: please see |arguments to avoid, as the arguments I saw in the last AfD were extremely weak
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)

Comment: Per my comments at the 2nd nomination "Whether the song was leaked or meant to be released or will ever be officially released is irrelevant if the song has been covered in multiple reliable sources.  It has, and so meets .  If it ever gets released and charts or gets multiple covers, etc., it will also meet SONGS.  But given that the song currently exists and has already been covered in multiple reliable sources, it is not , it does meet |notability and thus should be kept. Plus, nothing has changed since the consensus to keep less than a month ago to warrant another AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NSONGS||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:N)

Comment: Information has been merged into the main Michael Jackson article and the subject remains a 25 second leaked snippet of a song that has received no official release, hasn't charted, and has not received '''indepth''' coverage. Before anyone starts talking about how many |Google hits the song has received, look and see whether information is indepth; mentioning the production, recording, composition and reception. Most of what we know about the song is that it exists. The information regarding "A Place With No Name" can also be mentioned in A Horse With No Name
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GOOGLEHITS)

Comment: This link: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=a-place-with-no-name&scoring=a&sa=N&cid=8629443996156901 and this http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=jackson+a-place-with-no-name&scoring=a&sa=N&cid=8629431111254595 should demonstrate that the topic meets the |Notability Guidelines. It has received ''substantial coverage'' (defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content") in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Furthermore, the article does not make any unverifiable speculation, thus it is not covered by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRYSTAL)