Deletion of Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination)

Comment: per  and . I also don't see any sources on Google books which could be used for improving the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT||WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: This is a clear  and always has been
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per . Vague hand waves of sources is utterly unconvincing. Special:Contributions/173.79.47.227|173.79.47.227
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: per . This was not an easy decision, but looking through the article and the discussion, it is clear that while this is a potentially notable subject matter, the numerous editors who have seemingly spent years doing their hardest to prevent a balanced and reasoned analysis of Michael Jackson's cultural impact mean this article is probably best being deleted to prevent disinformation from being presented on Wikipedia. Perhaps some more reasoned editors can create a better article on this at some point in the future, but currently this page is too much of a battleground to salvage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Above arguments for 'keep' can be best described as  and . But the article is an obvious  that fails to show why do we need a separate article for writing a couple of sensible sentence about the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST||WP:ITSNOTABLE||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per above. Comments provided by trolley of Jackson fans above do read like , learly notable or more specifically, "but we need more time to fix this fancruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST||WP: C)

Comment: Drmies' analysis is persuasive, and the article suffers from insurmountable / issues. The "legacy and influence" section of the main biographical article is sufficient to show his notability without running afoul of the OR/SYNTH/CRUFT issues. I would be fine with a redirect as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I see many comments against users who support the delete nomination and his nominator. Maybe we need to have , because comments like: is "fandom war", "Get a life", "they've made clear and undeniable intentions to remove this article while pretending to improve it" and just "they" and a large etc of these comments don't help
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH)