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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkrawat[edit]

Chakkrawat (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)

Article is poorly written; contains no EN-lang cites for EN-lang WP, could be better submitted to TH-lang WP where no article exists; sketchy citations; cites do not comport with content (e.g., list of restaurants on a street in the subject area; contains "so what?" info such as the mention of a bank branch; no infobox, customary for district articles; submitter refuses to be registered as an editor, submits as anonymous and does not reply to communications; uncooperative editor who does not respond to feedback. Seligne (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Officially recognised populated place, there is a government source already in the article. None of the reasons given in the nomination are valid - citations need not be English, other-language Wikipedias have different content policies, new article creations by IP editors are allowed, and we don't delete articles because any editor declines to discuss their edits. Poor writing or content issues are solved by editing not deletion.----Pontificalibus 16:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a officially recognized populated area so meets WP:GEOLAND. Sources in the article need not be in English. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND, has sources (language does not matter). Hughesdarren (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND since it cites census data. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously meets WP:GEOLAND, as it is a populated, legally recognized places. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 2 October 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.