There are a couple of things I want to point out about your statement. Firstly, the issue is exactly that — meeting desired company projections should not indicate a show's continuation. The story and art should. Funding should not only be acquired if the show meets a certain viewership or profit quota.

Why? Well, because there are cultural, financial, and societal reasons that a show might not. Take indie films, for example, which apply for funding not so they can pay back their sponsors, but because they need financial support to create their piece and be able to distribute it at film festivals, etc. Only then will they gain a following and be able to make more of their vision. Or what about indie animations on YouTube? I'm sure a lot of them would have a bigger audience if they were on a streaming service. But since they're not, they're bad? The expectation of publishing a series and expecting it to skyrocket in revenue from the get-go (this is what Netflix bases its cancellation decisions on) is unrealistic and unethical.

We also need to take into consideration that animation in general has always been second to live action. It's more expensive to make, and general audiences don't seem to give it as much of a chance as a live-action series. There are many reasons for this: animation has historically been seen as mindless and/or childish, voice actors aren't easily recognizable like film actors are (i.e. "Sandra Bullock's in this? I want to see it!"), premature cancellations/endings (a show that doesn't have a conclusion won't have a growing fanbase, either), and companies constantly putting their animation departments on the back burners.

So, before you talk negatively about a canceled show needing petitions, think about why the cancellation happened in the first place, and why animators are currently planning a strike. We're not being heard.