Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Training Network for Animation


 * 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   delete. BJ Talk 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

European Training Network for Animation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Loose network of European animation educators, lacking any independent coverage. -- Mark Chovain 05:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V and WP:ORG.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, plus WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:IINFO. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, reliable sources are easy to find. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — per WP:BURDEN, it is for those seeking to include content to provide sources, not for those seeking to remove it to show there aren't any. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment true but equally at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions we find In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. In any case I have added several references to the article to support my assertion that they were easy to find.  Richard Pinch (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2008 (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.