Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonkuwal


 * 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 speedy keep. The subject passes WP:GEOLAND and the nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk |c|em ) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Bonkuwal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was previously tagged for speedy deletion but a non-confirmed user then removed it. This page contains no useful information and does not have any external links or sources. Even if somebody can find references, it doesn't seem like a notable topic. However, the article currently contains so little information that it's hard to tell what it's even about, so I guess it's possible that it could be a notable subject, just not well-written or sourced at all. SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 20:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete: I believe I was the individual who tagged it for speedy deletion; at the time, the article consisted only of the term "BONKUWAL", verbatim (and, yes, all majuscules), and, as such, clearly seemed a candidate under WP:G1. I will presume the removal was not malicious, but, rather, the actions of a user who isn't too familiar with Wikipedia, which is fine. (Honestly, I didn't feel like pushing the subject.) However, a quick Google search of Bonkuwal itself doesn't show many WP:RS results, outside of perhaps a high school. Yet this page isn't about the high school, and what is concerning is the further lack of content since my tag was deleted. As such, I have no choice but to vote for its removal from English Wikipedia. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC) (See below.)
 * Comment I think this may pass WP:NPLACE but I am unable to find an Indian government agency discussing it. I will support keep if someone can present such a source. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'll probably do the same. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * --SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, lots of mentions/in lists (some associated with other names) from a gsearch ie. "...of Bonkuwal Kathonibari village.", "hundreds of people, including men, women and children, from Doyang, Tengani, Bonkuwal,", "List of Total Uncovered ST-Dominated Habitations: UJONI BONKUWAL GAON", "List of Polling Booth in Bokakhat: 102 Bonkuwal Senior Basic School 745 Bonkuwal 103 Bonkuwal Senior Basic School  664 Bonkuwal 104 Bonkuwal High School 275 Bonkuwal", "Rhino Dies: A male rhino, which was shot by poachers on Monday in the Bonkuwal area near Kaziranga National Park, died on Tuesday.", "Information Regarding Representatives of PRIs: 64 Rinu Loying Golaghat Golaghat West AP Uttar Mahura 2 No. Bortika Gaon, P.O.-Bonkuwal, Golaghat - Assam AP Member". Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I guess the article is about village of Golaghat District, which is practically always spelled as Bonkuwal in the reliable sources, e.g. I could find just two mentions of it in newspapers & both of them spelled it as 'Bonkuwal' –  & . I also found several online government notifications which mention it as Bonkuwal. So Bonkuwal is common name of Bonqual, provided these two are different spellings of the same village. BTW, this is the census handbook of Golaghat district. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The census ref is enough to establish notability. Cesdeva (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As User:NitinMik has provided a source establishing this is a village recognized by the Indian government. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Having evaluated the new evidence provided, I hereby change my vote to keep, as well. Just wish there was more content in the article, now. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, yeah, now I'm keep as well :). I withdraw my nomination now. Sorry for any trouble.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 00:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.