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)[reply]

Canvas Networks

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Premptiveley tagging with Not A Vote based on people associated with the subject Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Five more references added. Steven Walling 02:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the irony is not lost on me I have to wonder if the {{notavote}} 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.