Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (animator)

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. L Faraone 02:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flood (animator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both subjects fail WP:BIO and are both very likely self-promotion. I've given the articles' creator a few weeks to possibly get these articles up to any kind of notability standards, but outside of extra fluff and trivia being added from either a Facebook page or IMDB, nothing much as changed. No other reliable, independent, third-party sources exists that give more than a passing mention. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per nom. It's just too soon. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to put up any more third party references as I am still waiting for an article about them that I've been told is being written. As soon as that article is produced, I will be able to provide more information from a third party source.AnimationWhiz133 (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the articles that have been put up by the charity that Mark Flood works with?AnimationWhiz133 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be considered WP:PRIMARY sources since the charity is affiliated with him, and as such wouldn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stuffed to bursting with puffery and sub-trivia (one line is literally a list of people he was in a room with once... no, really), but hasn't done anything notable yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage (or even mention) in reliable sources. I probed Google Books and News. I also looked for any coverage in British periodicals and Scottish ones (Daily Record and The Scotsman) and found none. I have to conclude that this is puffery. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:TOOSOON. Miniapolis 00:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, for lack of obvious notability. I do think that WP:USUAL applies to both, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is obviously notable. This guy has done a lot already and from what it says, has a lot of stuff coming up. I think that it is obvious this article should be kept. Stratosphere301 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable. As to he "has a lot of stuff coming up", that fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about Jack Morrison (actor) but Mark Flood (animator) should be preserved. I think that there seems to be enough articles to support that. He survived a stroke as a teenager, I think that almost deserves a page in itself. Phantombutler (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.