Deletion of Johnathan Bagley (2nd nomination)

Comment: as per , '' "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article ''. This is that in-depth discussion, which I note is being had for the second time - not because the article was nominated for deletion once, but that it ''was'' deleted once , as a result of that first discussion, and subsequently resurrected by yourself. What right you have to contradict the consensus that was reached in that discussion is not known to me or, I suspect, anybody else. When pressed for reasons as to why it should stay after all, you've come up with two sources that mention the subject in detail, and two that mention him briefly, and passed those off as significant coverage. The sources are news articles on the fan-run websites SnookerHub and SnookerHQ; Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Reliable_Source_guide|here, one member of WikiProject Snooker, while suggesting we cast out some fan-run websites such as CueTracker, at the same time endorses others such as SnookerHub and SnookerHQ. Who is that member? Lee Vilenski, of course. In the previous discussion, you used as your reason for keeping the article the fact that he had once qualified for the professional tour, and that as he had competed as a professional, he was notable. You know snooker, I'm sure, so you should be aware that in 1991, when Bagley turned professional, there was no qualification process; you or I could have paid our membership fees to the sport's governing body, and we would have been professionals, competing in professional events. Hundreds of people did just this, and Bagley was among them. If we say Bagley is noteworthy enough simply as a former professional, then again, we are setting a precedent: any player who has ever competed on the World Snooker Tour, regardless of their achievements or for how long they played, would be notable. We would then be writing articles on several hundred people who never even made it past the pre-qualifying rounds (let alone the qualifying rounds) of any tournament they ever played in - ''people just like Jonathan Bagley''. I'm sure we can all see how ridiculous that would be. Simply participating in professional events, then, is hardly sufficient to make one notable. Jonathan Bagley is one of hundreds of former professional snooker players; my argument is that two good performances in two amateur events two years ago, whatever coverage they received in the microcosm-world of avid snooker fans like ourselves, '''do not''' justify an article about him on Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)