Deletion of Johnathan Bagley (2nd nomination)

Comment: The arguments of the Nom are compelling as are those of JPL. A deleted and recreated article should provide evidence for inclusion above the reasoning it was deleted in the first place, that would certainly include |significant coverage in |independent sources. I am not a "snooker fan" or expert and the discussion above seems to involve two that are more knowledgeable on the subject. The Nom's comments seem to indicate that the criteria of the WIkiProject indicate the subject does not reach the inclusion criteria. The rebuttal indicates less reliance on a WikiProjects criteria. Looking at List of snooker players, that states ''"This is a list of notable amateur and professional snooker players, past and present."'', of which many are contestable, there does appear to be a more common theme that many on the list have placed high in rankings or won national or international tournaments. Since almost all sources are industry specific there has to be some allowances but I am not convinced that a need to list all snooker players (amateur or professional) should extend to "Last 144
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:INDEPENDENT)

Comment: Meets . There's no "sticking to guidelines" here, as there is enough press about the player, specifically because of the recent quality on the World Seniors Tour. https://snookerhub.co.uk/from-leeds-to-sheffield-taxi-for-bagley/, http://www.thecueview.com/bagley-qualifies-for-world-seniors.html, https://snookerhq.com/2018/01/08/steve-davis-crowned-seniors-irish-masters-champion/, https://snookerhq.com/2018/04/13/cliff-thorburn-triumphs-in-seniors-masters/ - plus the qualifying for the World Snooker Championship last year. I'm not saying we should create articles on all amateur players, but we also shouldn't be afraid to create them on players who get significant coverage. Best Wishes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)