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. kurykh 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Delete What is the claim to notability here? No major awards or accolades, this guy appears to be a run of the mill journalist. Terrible sources, and little links here. Bonewah (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Floyd's writings are excellent examples of critical analysis and speaking truth to the power. I think the person who wants him deleted does not want such important critique of U.S. empire to be read.

Exactly. No major awards? Hello. Project Censored for a start. Published a book. Moscow Times tenure during cold war. This call for deletion is simply a partisan move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.137.243 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His story was picked as one of 25 top stories by Project Censored, that is not what I would call a 'major award'. Writing a book and working for the Moscow Times does not make him anything more than a run of the mill journalist and author, as I said. If you really want this article to stay, why dont you try improving it rather than accusing me of partisanship? Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Appears to (barely) meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Most of the bio is unreferenced; the only refs are his works—primary sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 08:44, 15 May 2010 (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.