Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse scandal in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney
While the article focuses on one case, there were several other cases mentioned before the Royal Commission (and which are referenced in its final report). As regards the main case mentioned in this article, it *did* go to (civil) court, and the article quotes from the judge's decision. The reason the article focuses on that case is because it was a proven case, both through evidence and the perpetrator's admissions (which were documented both within the Royal Commission and subsequently), so Bilby's use of the word "alleged" is incorrect.
I disagree that "most of the article is about the diocese's procedures" - close to half of the article is about the Royal Commission's examination of the main case and others. The diocese's procedures for dealing with complaints were amended principally as a result of that complainant's case and her subsequent activism.
This article was originally part of the main diocese article, but was expanded (with a number of errors included, though, which have since been corrected) and given its own page. I believe it's sufficiently large that it would be inappropriate to have it return to being part of the main diocese's article.
I guess it depends on how you define "scandal". I personally think that it's scandalous that ANY denomination's handling of clergy abuse complaints can be described as a disgrace. But more generally, the "clergy sexual abuse scandal" is referred to in many countries and across many denominations. It's not unreasonable for the article title to be taken as dealing with the piece of the scandal that deals with that issue in the Sydney Anglican diocese - ie. interpreting it not so much as "the scandal in the diocese", but "the part of the wider scandal which occurred within that particular denomination and diocese".
But even if the word "scandal" in the heading is a bit OTT, I see no reason why that should suggest that the whole article should be removed.