Deletion of Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community

Comment: Contrary to the nominator's claim, cleanup has addressed a number of the issues identified in the last AFD. Could it still use work? Sure. (As I said at the time, the "list of incidents" format is not useful for incidents that are not themselves especially notable. But we can look at the incidents and then talk about features common to many of them, eg. kicking accusers out of school, without naming names.) But to repeat myself, it's an obviously notable topic and the article is nowhere near poor enough to justify a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: I have not gone back and looked at older versions of the article, I'm evaluating id 556822444.   With regard to claims of synthesis, when I look through the references, I see articles that talk about them as a group.  The articles themselves appear to be from generally reliable sources.   Not a lot of , but some (e.g., http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/16/orthodox-sex-abuse-scandal-new-york).  And while some of the coverage within the article so far has a short time window, sources such as http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/nyregion/for-ultra-orthodox-in-child-sex-abuse-cases-prosecutor-has-different-rules.html?pagewanted=all reliably tie a pattern of issues with sexual abuse in the community with the 2009 Kol Tzedek program, three years earlier and again, which shows this is a coherent topic, with effects that go far beyond a single news cycle, and which have a  effect. Certainly there are more notable patterns of events than this, but this seems above the bar
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOSCOPE||WP:LASTING)

Comment: without addressing specific problems (which could be solved by normal editing processes), I share Carrite's concern about |synthesis.  Looking at the article's history, I see a lot of edit-warring and trolling, which gives me pause
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per . I'm not aware of any source - in or out of the article -- that specifically discusses the topic of "sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: if there are proven cases of sexual abuse in the Haredi Community of Brooklyn, it is  to point out these cases out of all the sexual abuse cases in the world. Why makes the ones of the Haredi community or the ones of Brooklyn so special that they deserve a special article in wikipedia ? Do we expect to create an article for each community of the world and for each eara in the world that would have the size of Brooklyn ? That is would be nosense. By comparison, writing an article about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1860129/ gastric cancer in Japanese community is justified because that is something that was specifically discussed by specialists and that can be sourced (per ) but there is nothing comparable with the current article. I add that we are also in the same context as . It is true that  is dedicated to a given person and not a group but the philosophy of the rule is to prevent the introduction of material that could uselessly and without justification attack living people in discriminating them among others
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:BLP)

Comment: in line with Catholic sex abuse cases and its many sister articles.  Obviously an article of this nature needs to be carefully monitored for attack-type material, and I encourage everyone, including the delightfully-named |single-purpose account Brooklynch, to do exactly that.  But deletion is not the right remedy for that.  This is as good a series of topically related crimes as any, and gets routinely covered by all sorts of most-respectable RS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)