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.
This queen is not notable apart from in the context of Utpala dynasty, where I have covered her in all details. There is no discussion of her exploits other than in dynastic histories of Kashmir, deriving from Rajatarangini. I had redirected the article but was twice-reverted. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers the subject in greater detail and therefore, should not be deleted. She is notable as she is one of the few female rulers of Kashmir. Didda and Kota Rani also have their separate articles. Peter Ormond (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article explains "Ekangas and Tantrins", with whom she frequently had a clash. The article has a userbox which contains all her positions, which makes it easier for a reader to understand. The article also gives a brief description about her family, coinage and the towns she built during her reign. Peter Ormond (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The family details and the towns, temples etc. commissioned by Sugandha are mentioned in the article on Utapala Dynasty, as well. With much more context. The sole explanation about the Tantrins, that I spot over this article, is that they are a wild, ungovernable, and unpredictable clan. From which source, have you ascertained that information? You have edit-warred with me to restore un-sourced and then, mis-sourced content. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not added that explanation. It was there before I had started editing that article. If you feel that there could be a better explanation, you could help by contributing to it. You can also enlist all the towns and temples built by her under a separate heading, which you feel are given with less context. But she is notable and deserves a separate article like other Queens of Kashmir. Peter Ormond (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ruler in her own right of a kingdom, and appears well sourced. PamD 08:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced well and she ruled directly, not just as a regent or consort. Suonii180 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS clearly indicate notable in her own right. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2021 (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.