Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. At any rate no consensus to delete. It may be useful to continue discussion about whether and how this content should be merged with related articles, but opinion here seems to be roughly divided about that.  Sandstein  08:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is mostly redundant to Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions, which deals with a wider scope of sexual abuse cases within religious groups in New York City. This article has too narrow of a scope, and much of the article is either defamation or quotes from non-neutral points of view. Also, this is a WP:BLP violation and although this is certainly part of a notable trend, this is too overly detailed and probably not notable by itself. I suggest a merge. Epic Genius (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is a previous discussion under another name, Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community -- Y not? 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously a notable and discrete topic per sources. Nominator's arguments are very weak. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant content in Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions should be merged here, not the other way around. The eg. basketball program cases are random incidents united by the fact that they happened to take place in NYC, while a number of reliable sources have identified abuse in the NY Haredi community as a discrete issue. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is but one facet of a larger topic. The sources provided support a greater trend of child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community is given too much undue weight, so that's why I am suggesting a merge. Epic Genius (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  —Мандичка YO 😜 19:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is other related topics for other articles, but this is a major topic of its own and has been discussed separately. However, the material should in any case be covered in one or the other, not in both.  DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having read your rationale carefully, you are clearly !voting "Merge or Delete (but keep discussion elsewhere) or Keep (but delete discussion elsewhere)" (you write: "the material should in any case be covered in one or the other, not in both"), though the header to your discussion might mislead some to misunderstand that. Let us know if my understanding is at all incorrect. Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions per nom. Most of the information has already been incorporated there. The present article does look like a sounding board for non-neutral POV by the New York Post and The New York Times, and its narrow focus, in light of the larger article, fails WP:UNDUE. Yoninah (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as per my opinion in the prior AfD. Individual BLP violations within the article (to the extent they exist) should absolutely be dealt with by removing the offending text - not by the deleting the whole article. -- Y not? 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the prevalence of findings within a single group. There is precedent in the article about sexual abuse within the Catholic Church [].  I sympathize with complaints about sources of the New York Post but I cannot agree with Yoninah that the New York Times is a non-neutral POV. BrandenburgG (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the article describes a notable phenomenon. I am less happy with the list of "notable cases", and just removed two people from that list who were not convicted. I would consider removing the list of notable cases, but pending that, it is important that the list hold to the highest of scrutiny regarding the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: My edit was partially undone, in that the information was restored, but the names removed. I have no problem with that, as long as we are very careful with this article. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per DGG, the articles could either be merged or the redundant text removed from the article Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. Epic Genius (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge or ... Agree with Epic. Per DGG, the articles could either be merged, or the article deleted (but content remain elsewhere), or kept but only if the redundant text is removed from the article Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions. Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. As nom says, some of the material belongs in Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions, and some in Charles J. Hynes. But let us be be very cautions about slandering groups.  The article itself note that " the rate of sex abuse within Haredi communities is roughly the same as anywhere else".  But the mere fact of  having a special article on sexual abuse in this community and not in other communities inevitably gives the impression that this community has a outsize rate of abuse.  Note that we are talking about a identity/ethnic/religious community, not an institution as in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases.  This is the equivalent of having  an article on Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Dominican Catholic community.   We don't have an article on Sexual abuse cases in England's Muslim community, we have an articles on the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale sex trafficking gang, the Oxford sex gang, the Bristol sex gang, the Telford sex gang and the Peterborough sex abuse case, but not  an article smearing the entire British Muslim identity/ethnic/religious community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions to the extent possible. However, it seems like a lot of information in this article either violates WP:BLP or WP:NPOV or else is redundant of material already in Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions, so I'm not sure what would be left to merge once all of the violating or redundant material was edited out. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- there's more than enough that is distinctive about this topic to justify a separate article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete - This is a singling out of a religious community. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, or merge. Ism schism (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's equal opportunity. Cf. Category:Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States -- Y not? 14:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But we don't have a separate article about Christian sexual abuse cases in New York City, despite the fact that content about that topic is in the Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions article. Not really equal opportunity... Epic Genius (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Content in this article is about a specific set of cases. This content would be WP:UNDUE in any article covering these sorts of crimes generally rather than these specific cases. For that reason, these should not be merged. The content itself meets WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.