Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stunts Canada


 * 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 delete. North America1000 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Stunts Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD.

News searches find exactly seven sources, one of which is irrelevant, one of which is a blog, and two of which are official press releases. Open web searches don't fare much better, and find mostly social media, procedurally generated sources like ZoomInfo, and reposts of videos. Of the few sources found that seem to be genuenly reliable, like this one, most or all appear to be coincidental word usage, and trivial mention, as in here. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think there are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this organization.  Peacock (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nomination. Insufficient independent secondary or reliable sources.Cyali (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I ran a ProQuest search to see if this perhaps had some older coverage that might not show up in a conventional Google search, but I didn't find much — mainly just glancing acknowledgements of its existence in coverage of individual stunt performers, and coincidental text matches in usages like "industry slump stunts Canada's economic growth". Something like this would certainly be eligible for an article if it could be sourced properly, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if good sourcing actually shows up, but it's not entitled to an exemption from having to be sourced properly just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.