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 no consensus. I've moved the article to Ubagarampillai Sagayam as that's his full name. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U. Sagayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable civil servant. Mid level. Fail WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People wanting to know about him, come to wikipedia. If you delete this page, then it would be like snuffing the nascent flame, which when kindled would inspire youngsters and erradicate so many clutches from Tamil Nadu and India.
Prabhakar Jeyaraman (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. Found some additional sources covering the subject: a profile in Outlook, which has a circulation of ca. 500,000; a piece in DNA, whose website claims that it has 1.5 million readers in Mumbai; and a five-page piece on the granite-mining scandal in Frontline, an imprint of The Hindu Group whose website gives its average issue readership as 152,000. — Ammodramus (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2014 (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.