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. Wizardman 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaimamani[edit]

Kalaimamani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

no claim of notability on the article itself since March , previously propsed4dletion2007 Montchav (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The importance of these awards does not reach an encyclopedic level. They are non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it's notable enough for The Hindu and the Times of India then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Plenty more sources at Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Phil Bridger. D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well, a valid stub is exactly what they are, most of them. This one has good sources for notability.DGG (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (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.