Deletion of Kanakorn Pianchana

Comment: and '''rename''' to Suicide of Khanakorn Pianchana (with redirects from Khanakorn Pianchana and Suicide of Kanakorn Pianchana, due to spelling differences). Per my above comment, WP:JUDGE is problematic in how it should be interpreted (in this case, Yala Provincial Court does not have jurisdiction over the entire province of Yala, so he would fail the criterion even if it were considered to cover Thai provinces), and there is zero in-depth coverage of the subject prior to his first suicide attempt, thus apart from the one event in question, the subject as an individual fails to meet the . The event, however, is notable, especially (sadly) with his second, successful, attempt, and should be the subject of Wikipedia's coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Looking at the footnote at , which states:This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. I must say that this is certainly not the case here. Thailand is a unitary state, not a federal state like the US (from whose perspective the criterion seems to have been written), and the provinces don't hold any independent power that would subject them to much media scrutiny. Also, provincial courts are only by coincidence named as such, and their operations are completely unrelated to the province. (For example, there are two provincial courts in Yala Province.) Even in the US, the usual interpretation appears to be that the guideline confers notability to state supreme court judges, but not those lower. Thailand's provincial courts are the second-lowest tier among the the courts of first instance, so serving such a position would still be a far cry from notability. A quick Google search reveals zero results mentioning the subject prior to the incident, apart from government name lists. That said, this was a significant event which is still generating coverage months later. Even if the person is found to lack notability, I don't see any reason the article should be deleted rather than rescoped to "cover the event, not the person" per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JUDGE||WP:1E)

Comment: per {{u| Philafrenzy}} and meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JUDGE)

Comment: Deemed notable according to  as a "judge who has held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office". He is a senior judge at Yala Provincial Court. See ref 1 https://thethaiger.com/news/south/outpouring-of-public-support-for-thai-judge-who-shot-himself-in-yala-court "a senior judge at the provincial court" and ref 5 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/asia/thailand-judge-shooting.html "chief judge of the Yala trial court" as well as others. BLP1e is irrelevant for people deemed notable by policy (judges, politicians etc). If people feel it concentrates too much on one event, the answer is expansion not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JUDGE)