Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (filmmaker)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flood (filmmaker)

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

Almost WP:G4, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (animator). The only improvement to this latest recreation is the addition of a single source from a site (VoiceOverTimes), which doesn't, to my eyes, have enough editorial oversight to make it an WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pulling up some false positives for an artist by the same name that looks to have come from Houston and is not the same person, so a bit of a warning there. Although on a side note, he could probably get an article himself if anyone was interested in writing it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I can't find anything to show that he passes notability guidelines now. The VOT source could be seen as a RS in some aspects, but even if the decision for that was unanimous it still wouldn't be usable as a RS to show that Flood now passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just can't find anything establishing notability. I am One of Many (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2014 (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.