Deletion of UK underground

Comment: ec x 2) The term is an established historical usage for a specific  cultural movement, which was active approximately mid 1960s - mid 1970s. Numerous sources, both contemporaneous and subsequent, use it in this way, e.g. the recent Tate gallery book, ''Summer of Love''.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vn-O7V8YG8wC&pg=PA269&dq=Underground+counter+culture+UK&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=underground&f=false It has a distinct identity: ''The underground or alternative society – and the term was used widely, unselfconsciously and proudly – of the Sixties was an international phenomenon.''http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/a-lost-cause-646380.html The Independent (2002) Wikipedia follows established usage and to not do so is |original research. It has also been used to refer to other activities at different times, but that does not invalidate this usage. Tony Elliott specifically differentiates its earlier from its later usage.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/a-lost-cause-646380.html When this happens, the solution is to disambiguate, not to delete. The article is not "contentious speculation" or , as the various elements that are present in it are referred to by the sources as part of this movement, e.g. ''Floyd were the official group of the underground. The bible of the underground was the International Times, the meeting point of the underground became the UFO club''.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/11/syd The Guardian (2006) ''Release (agency)|Release, an underground organisation''http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/apr/30/guardianobituaries.drugsandalcohol ''the Arts Lab ... was an "epicentre" of the underground scene''.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vn-O7V8YG8wC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=underground+%22jim+haynes%22&source=web&ots=p3r0Qu4dNz&sig=QJJ4s19THW86NZXF2CdI6MDMn4Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=35&ct=result At the time of the nom, there were 28 references listed on the article talk page,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_underground&oldid=327687313 and a reading of these clearly establishes the legitimacy of the article content. It is standard editing practice to combine information from different sources which address the same subject in order to create a comprehensive article about that subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTHESIS)