There are many cultures with stories of a great flood. Could widen the search. :)
If you see in my comment #12 I lean towards a universal flood even if it was regional and not global. In other words, I believe the flood killed everybody on the planet (except for the people in the ark) even if I have questions about how much of the planet was covered by the flood. The flood could have happened at a point in time when all of the world's population still lived in the "cradle of civilization" (I love that archaeological evidence backs up the Bible text of where civilization began, but that's another topic) before they migrated out to the rest of the planet. And whether or not the flood covered the planet, if all of todays people are descendants of the ark (as you and I believe) there's no surprise the story of the flood is in many cultures.
Back to the main point which is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. If you note, I use phrases like "suggests" and "lean towards" and "it's possible" because an eisegesis reading of the Bible text shouldn't conclude in beliefs that we draw a line in the sand over. The only time we should stand firm in our Bible beliefs are things we get from an exegesis reading.