Deletion of Forced adoption in the UK

Comment: as per MatthewVanitas: there is well-sourced material here that should be kept on Wikipedia in some format, but this article under this title poses various challenges to . Re-titling to something more neutral is perhaps the best approach, but what that terms should be, I'm uncertain about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per . Once you remove the POV, there's not much left. Many sources are to articles by Christopher Booker, a columnist with an axe to grind; especially in Christopher Booker#Family courts controversy|this context, I don't consider him a RS
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Comment: Editors have knocked out most of the soapbox stuff so  isn't needed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: I believe this is |original research and |synthesis, sprinkled with some serious POV (the original author's chosen username is 'Statekidnap'). The term ''forced adoption'' does not seem to be used as the central concept in most of the given references I checked - instead the issue seems to be a wider recognized problem with the UKs adoption system. If there were a series of influential articles or books or other material that referred to the issue this way then fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. If there were an article called "Adoption in the UK" then maybe that would be a merge target, but no such article exists - although there are a couple of per-nation articles: :Template:Adopt. I don't doubt that this material merits some coverage, but not here, not in this wholly negative format, and not from a person who is obviously biased (with no prejudice as to what their motivation is) about the issue. Instead of truly documenting the issue, this is ended up as a case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:WORTHYCAUSE)