Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanakorn Pianchana


 * 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) xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kanakorn Pianchana

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article meets all three criteria for WP:BLP1E.  Bait30  Talk? 08:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   Bait30   Talk? 08:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.   Bait30   Talk? 08:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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 WP:1E. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:JUDGE as well as meets all three criteria for WP:BLP1E - as stated in the nomination above. --Less Unless (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Deemed notable according to WP:JUDGE 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 "a senior judge at the provincial court" and ref 5 "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. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looking at the footnote at WP:JUDGE, 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.
 * Keep per and meets WP:JUDGE. Idolmm (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 WP:GNG. The event, however, is notable, especially (sadly) with his second, successful, attempt, and should be the subject of Wikipedia's coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He's dead? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've added a news citation to the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename, per Paul.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. This suicide was a political action, not just a personal tragedy. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see how renaming to "Suicide of" is superior to a conventional biography from the reader's point of view, however deficient the earlier biographical material may be. Other sources, probably from Thai newspapers, will certainly emerge over time as he had a long career. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The coverage of his suicide attempts will naturally focus on the surrounding issues and their effects on the South Thailand insurgency, rather than his personal life. Renaming the article would provide for a scope that can more naturally follow this flow of coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't we do both in the same article? If his suicide is so significant, surely we want to know about the rest of his life too? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we can, as far as sources are available. Suicide of ... articles commonly include a "Background" or "Life" section written in conventional biography style. See Suicide of Leelah Alcorn for example. Renaming would make it clear that the article is primarily about the event, and would allow for in-depth discussion which might otherwise be WP:UNDUE in a normal biography. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as suggested by . KartikeyaS  (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename, as per Paul 012. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2020 (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.