Deletion of Yeshiva Torah Temimah

Comment: The aforementioned pedophilia scandal received substantial |reliable source coverage; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeshiva_Torah_Temimah&oldid=273478163 this version of the article before it was stubbed.  It's part of the history and functioning of the organization, not just information about an individual connected to it, so this is not a |COATRACK situation (this appears to have been the rationale for suppressing the information).  The sources mentioned demonstrate international reliable source coverage of the organization, so it satisfies .  The article should cover more than the pedophilia scandal, but that's a reason for article editing, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:COATRACK||WP:ORG)

Comment: I noticed that somebody on Talk:Yeshiva Torah Temimah|the article talk page has suggested splitting out the sexual abuse controversy to its own article, presumably as a way of reducing the |weight it is given in this article.  I don't support this -- I don't think the subject merits its own article -- but I thought I'd mention it here, while we have a quorum
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: because it is a very notable established Haredi yeshiva in Brooklyn worthy of an article on its own positive merits. True, unfortunately, it has been the place where there has been a problem with dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct by a teacher and a subsequent cover-up, but that is not what makes the yeshiva notable nor important as a yeshiva per se. Similarly, '''Dallas is not notable only because JFK was shot there!''' But it is obvious that looking at the editing history of the two users here who have worked on portraying only negative information, {{User|Yomista ‎}} and {{User|Nonameyetanon}} that they themselves may well be bordering on a number of problematic behaviors that need to be monitered more closely such as ;  and  and due to the limited and identical nature of their edits they may well also be in violation of . Scandals and legal problems are interesting but while they may make for good yellow journalism it is not the same thing as writing and building a reliable  encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSCANDAL||WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND||WP:LIBEL||WP:SOCKPUPPET||WP:NPOV)

Comment: as meeting V and N, but with an encouragement to expand the article to non-controversy related material.  Per  we don't have to limit the article to ''solely'' what's covered in reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NNC)