Deletion of Labour Party immigration scandal

Comment: I initially suggested this page should be merged to "immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922", but I now believe it should just be deleted. It's a |coatrack for putting any negative immigration news story. The "related stories" don't seem to be related unless the article is about the entire immigration system in the 1990s and 2000s. In that case it would be part of "immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922". With it's current title, it's just a |content fork of the main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per my comments on the talk page. Political propaganda, fails  by a long way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: the article is basically |original research presenting a far right conspiracy theory that "the Labour Party... set about a deliberate policy of encouraging mass third world immigration, to socially engineer a multicultural society
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Pure POV-pushing and improper synthesis, and I think the  provisions against scandal-mongering and tabloid news also apply. The central figure in this supposed scandal says "Somehow this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot."http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather As Yorkshirian is complaining about political motivations of other editors, perhaps he should remove the plank from his own eye. Some material on this topic could be included in Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922#Contemporary immigration (1983 onwards) giving it due weight, but this article should not be merged there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: article is widely presented and referenced from the mainstream media including The Times, The Telegraph, Spectator, The Mail, BBC, Guardian, Daily Express, Daily Star, The Sun and so on. The controversy is erifiable, eliable and otable, has been developing in the public sphere over a period of two weeks so far (first emerged in late October and is still in the media today as well). The scandal has seen an official inquiry initated by the Shadow Cabinet of the Government and a public apology from the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom. Despite the bundles of sources, vast coverage from politicans including in the House of Commons and an official enquiry underway, Nickhh and a few other activists apparently |don't like what the media says. IMO the nomination is not based on policy or rationale (as it is easily verifiable and notable), but rather personal political views/Labour activism (far left cover up attempt
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:R||WP:N||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as a clear example of . This incident doesn't seem to have gotten beyond "|a short burst of news reports" which is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:SBST)

Comment: an extremist POV article attempting to |synthesise a "scandal" where none exists, and to misrepresent the original source of the "story" (Andrew Neather). Fails #NEWS; furthermore retaining this article would set an unacceptable precedent where every contrived political squabble would merit a Wikipedia article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:NOT)

Comment: The article suffers NPOV and possibly |synthesis issues for sure, and the political POV-pushing/talk page behaviour by article authors is despicable; but coverage is wide |verifiable, |reliable (BBC, Guardian etc.) and therefore |notable. The SOAP and NPOV issues brought on by nominator -which I agree exist and are to be dealt with- can be dealt by editing, not deletion, per  policy. AfD is not a way to solve a NPOV battle. Bringing the article to  is a better option. A merge could also be, but proposing a merge does not need AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:NPOVN)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS, |POV, , per others' comments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: Storm in a teacup and not notable. Doesn't have Wikipedia:News articles|significant lasting and historical interest and impact, breaches  and relies on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources|questionable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)