Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanakorn Pianchana
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 
— User:Paul, 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:JUDGE||WP:1E (Wikipedia:Notability)