Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood Animations

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 and salt. I'm closing this a little early for a few reasons. The first is that the article's creator has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of AnimationWhiz133, so it's a delete as a block evasion. It's also a delete since this is also essentially a recreation of content that was at the various Mark Flood articles (since much of the content mirrors information in those articles), but it's also a delete because the studio does not appear to have notability enough to where it'd pass notability guidelines where the main articles for Flood have not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flood Animations

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

This is a backdoor attempt at recreating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (filmmaker) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Flood (animator) both of which have been part of an ongoing attempt at self promotion and advertising. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnimationWhiz133

As for the article itself, the sources are still (as with its deleted predecessors) being misused, and the few reliable sources included are either Wikipedia:Bombardment or do not always support the attached claims. Still way, way too soon. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability has been established. Not to mention the procedural stuff above and the lack of reliable sources on this subject. Luthien22 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2015 (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.