Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canvas Networks


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvas Networks

 * – ( View AfD View log )



Notability claims hang off persons associated with project. References do not prop up independent notability of this topic. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Premptiveley tagging with Not A Vote based on people associated with the subject Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There are at least a dozen strong, exclusive sources if you look on Google News -- for example, I just added one story from the print edition of The New York Times, and would be happy to add others from Wired, PC World and others when I have a little more time. Notability is clearly not just inherited here: it comes from the reliable coverage of the site itself and its founding. WP:WEB's criteria clearly dictates that a site with this much comprehensive coverage is notable.  Steven Walling  22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At most 2 of those references (Digital Trends and NYT) are primarily focusing on the site. The others talk primarily about moot and mention in passing that he's starting a new site. Hasteur (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll add some more then. There's a lot more than two that are about the site. Steven Walling  02:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Five more references added. Steven Walling  02:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – Per Steven Walling's efforts at improvement, although I believe that a poor time was chosen to create the article (eg. too soon). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. While the irony is not lost on me I have to wonder if the tag is needed. Aside from the name of this article is there any evidence of "canvasing"?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Hasteur assumed that because it was sort of 4chan-related, there would be a flood of IP participation. Not a crazy guess, but clearly this has been less dramatic than it could have been. Steven Walling  01:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep Significant coverage from more than enough highly reputable sources, no credible chance this does not merit an article.  Skomorokh   19:00, 5 April 2011 (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.