Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnathan Bagley (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Tone 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Bagley[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur sportsman - as per WP:CUENOT and WP:NSPORT, being ranked 270th and never making it past the pre-qualifying rounds is not enough to make his professional career notable - as for his amateur career, he has had some success...competing as an amateur, on an amateur tour, in amateur events featuring ex-professional players - a tour from which professionals are excluded. If we keep Jonathan Bagley, if we believe competing on the World Seniors Tour is enough to make him notable, we must have articles for every player who competes on that tour and indeed every other player whose only achievements have been at amateur level. We either do that or we stick by the guidelines we currently have in place, under which there is clearly no place here for an article for Jonathan Bagley. Montgomery15 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Montgomery15 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. 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. [1], [2], [3], [4] - 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, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per WP:GNG, "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; 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. Montgomery15 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we should just allow coverage only in sport specific sites to propel us to create an article. There is no broad coverage, and no significant coverage outside of sport-psecific websites, and no reason to overturn the last deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete but I'd like to see some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 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". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the coverage of him appears to be what I would consider routine sports reporting. He was never world ranked and his best performance in open competition was making the final 262 at the Welsh Open in 1992. He did qualify for the 2019 world championships, where he lost his first match, by being the highest ranked amateur on the senior tour, but that doesn't seem sufficient to grant automatic WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.