Deletion of Noach (parsha)

Comment: Much has been made of the lack of specific references within this article to establish the notability of the topic of the parsha itself. Though this is a valid criticism, it is not a reason to delete the article, but instead an argument for improving the article. |Significant coverage of this (and of the other parashot) in |reliable sources is so extensive and varied that any questions about notability ought to be moot - the challenge is to identify and select among the vast array of sources readily available to include those of the highest academic quality and that reflect the full range of significant points of view about the topic. I do not have the expertise to identify those sources, but I am absolutely certain that they exist in abundance and winnowing them is the task at hand. I offer just one example - http://books.google.com/books?id=tuBQviuPidMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=parsha+weekly+Torah+reading&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_nv7T_P9PKWC2gXfuonrCw&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=parsha%20weekly%20Torah%20reading&f=false Entering Torah: Prefaces to the Weekly Torah Portion a 2009 book by Reuven Hammer, a mainstream commentator on Jewish topics. This book devotes five pages (11-15) to analysis of Noach, and a similar amount to the other parashot. There must be thousands of other examples published over many hundreds of years. These parashot are notable as individual subjects of intensive and focused study and published commentary of the most rigorous academic standards. That makes them notable enough for Wikipedia articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)