I'm glad someone finally asked this question.
Let take a pop progression like
|: I V vi IV :| and compare that with the formal concept of a cadence.
If we have the mistaken idea that cadences are merely specific chord progressions, then the pop progression produces...
I V a supposed half cadence
V vi a supposed deceptive cadence
IV I a supposed plagal cadence
Any of the three supposed "cadences" clearly does not conclude a phrase or the end of a section.
Yes, the vocal part sung over the progression eventually will stop when the section ends, but it will be coincidental to the harmony. The vocal will stop simply because ...well, honestly it stops after about 4 repeats of the progression or whatever is enough time to fulfill the expected length of a verse or chorus in a pop song. But without doubt, the vocal phrase doesn't end as a result of the harmony of the chord progression effecting a cadence!!! This is an important distinction.
The actual definition of a cadence requires the end of something. The end of a phrase (even if the music doesn't stop, ex. elided phrases) or there should be an actual stop in the music. But, really we need the end of a phrase, otherwise musical rests could be misconstrued as demarcation of cadences.
Let me reiterate: repeating the pop chord progression does not necessarily generate phrases. It's just a harmonic background. This contrast strongly with classical style where repeats normally help demark formal sections and phrases.
I like to think of repetitious pop chord progressions as an anti-cadence device. The whole point is to not stop. Keep the groove groovin'!
Pachelbel's Canon brings up a specific case: a ground bass. Yes, it repeats the same harmony over and over. But it's a variety of theme and variations form. Importantly, the repetitions of the harmony do mark the end of phrases.
Another way you can bring in classical music to understand this distinction between mere chord progression versus a cadence is looking at the so-called 'first theme group' in a sonata. Many sonatas start with several thematic ideas which harmonically might be
I V I. Those ideas unfold as an unbroken chain which harmonically just defines the tonic. It would be inappropriate to call those things "cadences." It is often described as cadential harmony, but without out a doubt it would not be formally a bunch of cadences.
Whether analyzing pop music or classical music the term "cadence" should be used only to describe formal endings.
Essential reading: WILLIAM E. CAPLIN, The Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions
Re. the blues, which came up in @AlbrechtHügli's answer.
Obviously, 12 bar blues is familiar in the pop style and like pop progressions it repeats over and over. But I would put the 12 bar blues into a category sort of like classical ground bass. The blues turnaround whether
V IV I I :|| or
V IV I V :|| does demark a phrase ending and a type of cadence.