Deletion of List of unreleased Michael Jackson material (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'm not sure  is really violated here.  It's not an article about a possible future album that may or may not exist, it's an article about songs that actually exist.  Now, that leaves other notability issues and while it's extremely rare for unreleased material to reach notability, I think this is one of those very unusual instances in which it is justifiable.  There does appear to be quite a bit of coverage of Jackson's unreleased material as a group (obviously, individual songs would not reach that notability level) in the context of an important historical figure in music.  Now, none of this is a slam-dunk, but given that this AFD was very recently discussed, I think if we err, it should be on the side of acknowledging the previous consensus.  The article really should be cleaned-up considerably, but that's not really an AFD issue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: and contemplate a '''procedural close'''.  The previous AFD was just earlier this month, with the same nominator.  Last time, the argument was that at least one of the sources used was a hoax; it wasn't.  This time, the argument is that we lean too heavily on a single source.  Irrespective of the merits of that argument, it is an editorial one.  And the closing admin of the previous AFD, all of 15 days ago, noted that "cleanup ... is not a reason for deletion."  That's still true.  And 15 days is not, in my opinion, |a reasonable time between nominations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELAFD)