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. Further recreation in article space without adequate content could lead to the title being protected. Recreation as a draft is fine if the creator is willing to abide by the articles for creation process. RL0919 ( talk) 14:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Karna Shilahara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Almost nothing here (almost qualifies for A1). Should be incubated in draft space, but author recreated it after it was draft-ified. — teb728 t c 11:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. An infobox, paired with a four-word sentence fragment that just says where the subject was born, is not an article. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and reliably source a paragraph of body text about why this person might be eligible to have an encyclopedia article. Note as well that Shilahara does not list this person as having been the "first" (or any other ranking) ruler of any of its three branches at all, so the notability claim being made in the infobox is not verified. Bearcat ( talk) 18:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Draftify' again. Pichpich ( talk) 20:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Draftify' again. Perhaps salt it so that it cannot be moved back to mainspace without review. Jmertel23 ( talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I have to agree. Ther's almost nothing at all on this page. What's the point of keeping it? WaterwaysGuy ( talk) 23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete or userify. This is not even enough to be a stub yet. The subject may well need an article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete and salt There are no resources and no sense that the claim of notability made is correct. -- Enos733 ( talk) 23:20, 15 July 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.