Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canvas Networks
- Canvas Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
 | 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}}. |
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)