Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagannath Dixit (2nd nomination)

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 keep. This is the second nomination, the last was nearly two months ago. As Nanophosis stated it needs some work, perhaps someone could do so? In any sense, for the second time now, the consensus here is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath Dixit[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of the page lacks notability and does not add value to Wikipedia Edwige9 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Edwige9 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edwige9 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Who are you to decide about whether it adds value to the encyclopedia or not? There's dozens of trivial to semi-trivial news-reports covering him in light of his pseudo-scientific diet-plan and we do a service to our readers in awaring them about such quacks. ∯WBG^converse 15:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Needs work from someone who can speak Marathi as many articles are likely not in English. Nanophosis (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WBG. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly documented as a quack, but he is a notably well-sourced quack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2019 (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.