Deletion of Antisemitism in the Labour Party

Comment: The article is little more then a  attack article for content that didn't gain consensus for inclusion on the main article Antisemitism in the United Kingdom which is basically the definition of a , and the issue of off-wiki canvassing should certainly be looked at by admins
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: a fork that fails to adhere to 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: This is a reliably sourced matter of public interest, just presented with an obsessive level of detail here that lends itself to seeing the page as intended mainly as an attack rather than a reference work. Several people have noted the main topic is Chakrabarti Inquiry. It's true that there's a little more context outside the inquiry itself, but not much. The key points could be made to live in the "Background" or "Controversy" sections of the inquiry page without difficulty. I note also that the Chakrabarti inquiry is not mentioned at all in Labour Party (UK). It seems respectable enough not to be ed
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:ONEWAY)

Comment: Meet  widely discussion in .Widely discussed in scholarly literature https://books.google.co.il/books?id=OjNBWahMyN8C&pg=PA71,https://books.google.com/books?id=NpcuDwAAQBAJ,https://books.google.com/books?id=L07RDAAAQBAJ
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: The collation of this material doesn't appear to be supported by the sources used- it's mostly a bunch of . Would support splitting material into the relevant articles, such as the books cited. Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth|PeterTheFourth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Clearly a notable topic as evidenced by the large number of reliable sources addressing it in detail. Delete arguments such as "why not 'Drinking culture in the Labour Party' or 'Antisemtitism in the Conservative Party'?" should be ignored because there is no reason not to create those articles should a similar quantity of sourcing be found. Regarding Chakrabarti Inquiry, I am of the opinion that that article could be merged into this one, as it covers one aspect of this subject. The only other main Delete argument seems to that his is a  but having actually read that policy, I don't see that as an argument for deletion here - people arguing for Delete based on that should clarify what this is a fork of and why it's irredemably not 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NPOV)

Comment: POV fork of Chakrabarti Inquiry. I don't know whether the subject of "antisemitism in the Labour Party" is sufficiently notable for an article apart from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but even if it is, this article doesn't cover that topic. The party is 117 years old, for god's sake, and this article covers barely two years! Talk about . —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Clearly passes , is not an attack page as alleged by the nominator, and none of the other reasons for deletion given so far are reasons to delete the article (any POV issues can be dealt with by editing to make the article better
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It's hard to believe that we're all talking about the same article. The scope, breadth and number of sources that directly address the topic in the article demonstrate that the topic merits notability on a standalone basis. Just looking at the four delete votes that precede mine, and all I see is claims of  and unsupported claims of a POV fork, while the keeps appear to be based on the content of the actual article under discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: to Chakrabarti Inquiry as a  or the latter. I note that the current version of the article does not even link the Inquiry’s article. The page consists mostly of polemical and original research and is not suitable for inclusion at this time. The name is a valid search term and the relevant content is already presented in the Inquiry page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK)

Comment: Delete votes amount to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)