http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing I don't really see anything in WP:CANVAS that would frown o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing I don't really see anything in WP:CANVAS that would frown on informing a specific subgroup. If anyone's capable of demonstrating notability, it's likely to be those who are most familiar with the subject at hand, yeah? I'd actually encourage going directly to the associated community and asking for assistance in determining notability. That being said, evidence does need to be put forth that meets WP:NOTE: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are many subsections and clarifications, but that's really the core of it. My experience in notability largely revolves around webcomics. There's a very low bar for entry and a fair amount of pride in one's creation, which I can well understand. However, things started getting to the point where an article was being created for each and every webcomic out there. In some cases, the fan community was quite helpful in demonstrating notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Whiteboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... If you disagree with notion of notability in general, we can discuss that separately (so long as you put forth an argument that my cat McMuttonchops can have an article in Wikipedia).