Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Torah periodicals

:{{la|List of Torah periodicals}} ([{{fullurl:List of Torah periodicals|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Torah periodicals}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Confusing article. Purports to be a list of periodicals of some sort, but none of these periodicals have received significant coverage in reliable sources. According to the general notability guidelines and the essay on media notability, this appears to be a clear Delete. Enigma^msg 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Un-notable hoax. I am eating Ramen (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

::Comment It's written by a longtime editor, so hoax accusations are unwarranted. Generally, the main sign of a hoax is the single-purpose contributor who expects to be banned, and this person has been here awhile. Still, what's a Torah periodical? I know what the Torah is, and I know what a periodical is, but what's that mean? Mandsford (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The article currently lacks content. I would change my position if someone added proper data and referencing. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As author has indicated they are okay with deletion in edit summary. Might have potential, but unless someone wants to work on it it's not suitable for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• comment apparently means, as I suspect it tends to mean in this context, periodicals about religion written from the standpoint of Orthodox Judaism, but a clear definition of scope is needed--and an attempt to write articles on the titles listed. DGG (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. May not be a hoax, but it looks like it's been started and abandoned. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no context or content Esasus (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - At 1st glance this seems to be a start of an article under construction, in which case I would hold off to allow time for context to be provided. But the history indicates that the article has been languishing for quite a while with no content, so unless some suitable content is added quickly, deletion seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (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.