Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (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. WP:SNOW close in view of the excessive heat produced by this debate, the strength of evident consensus, the possibility of a WP:CSD applying, and the consensus of the preceding first AfD. Note about procedural history: during the course of this AfD, the article was first speedy-deleted under CSD#G4 by admin User:RHaworth; then this AfD was SNOW-closed by me, then RHaworth reverted his own deletion but also re-opened this without consultation, so it's all in a bit of a procedural mess now, but it doesn't seem that anybody has doubted the validity of the SNOW close on its merits, so I feel it's safe to reinstate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Jabari Parker's high school career
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was already deleted at AFD on March 19, a deletion that was endorsed at DR on May 13. Less than a week after that DR closed, the article's author restored his user copy anyway. G4 deleted it, but Tony asked that this be overturned on the argument that G4 no longer applies. I don't necessarily agree with this. While Tony did remove some redundant sections, the core of this article is substantially unchanged from the deleted copy.

But more to the point, Tony is attempting an end-run around the last AFD and DR by making what amounts to cosmetic changes in a bid to overcome to one argument against this article without resolving any other issues. As such, every argument against this article raised at both the first AFD and the DR still applies. Even with the cosmetic reduction in article size, this remains an unnecessary fork full of trivial bloat. I will reiterate 's argument in the first AFD:

"If I'm not completely mistaken, the article on Jabari Parker already is the largest one on any basketball player we have, which is quite surprising (to say the least) considering he's an 18 years old currently playing his first college season. It seems this guy couldn't even stumble over his own feet without his 'biographer' devoting a new section on Parker's improved shoe tieing techniques afterwards. Now, with the establishment of this fork article intended to cover just his high school career, things are getting just too messy. So, this is me waiving a big stop sign. If an article gets too detailed, it needs to be trimmed, not split. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)"

The DR was unanimous in its endorsement, with only really expressing any level of doubt that Wikipedia does not need such a fork. In my own words, this article "covers what will become an increasingly trivial aspect of Parker's overall career in excruciatingly tedious detail." What is truly notable about Parker's high school career can easily fit into his main article. The rest of this page is trivia. Given Tony seems insistent on being Parker's "biographer", it stands to reason that if this article remains, there will be similarly meticulous forks for his college career, pro career, etc. Tony is using Wikipedia as a free web host, and much of what is written here falls into the category of indiscriminate information. I would suggest that Tony set up a Wordpress account or something if he wants to cover Parker in this manner. This is a level of obsession that exceeds Wikipedia's scope. Resolute 16:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Pageview comparisons
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 21.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 12012–13 NBA Rookie of the Year
 * 22013 & 2014 All-star


 * Yes he is completely mistaken. Jabari Parker is not the largest one of any basketball player.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore note that the prior AFD and DRV were about a 49 KB version of the article. I have streamlined the article down to a 33KB version without a lot of bloat and with a lot of new content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony, please do not interject your responses into the middle of my nomination statement. Thanks, Resolute 16:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:G4 (times two) and salt. Thorough consensus was established that this article should be deleted, not because of its unusual size but because of the inappropriateness of this level of detail for this athlete. That reason has not changed. Deletion was further endorsed via thorough consensus upon review. TonyTheTiger ignored this consensus and recreated the article anyway. The page should be deleted immediately and prevented from recreation, and the user should be sanctioned for this blatant and obvious AfD run-around. Ivanvector (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand WP:G4. It is not for greatly revised versions.--19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or speedy delete. Good gravy, this is longer than the entire article of a slightly more scrutinized player. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not an accurate characterization of my comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST refers to whether an article should exist or not. My rationale is that this is an over-the-top level of detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Still a completely unnecessary fork. It is borderline disruptive that the article was created right after the deletion review was endorsed. What is most bizarre is that the article contains information about Parker's early life and college career, which have nothing to do with his high school career. This represents a ridiculous amount of detail and sets a bad precedent. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 19:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Necessary per WP:PRESERVE. Obviously a lot of people wanted to read about his high school career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Why would you say his decision about which high school to go to is irrelevant to his high school career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My arguments in favor of keeping are as follows.
 * 1) Regarding the table above, most 2012 and 2013 viewers were likely seeking his history, which was then mostly high school. He is a rare athlete whose high school career has been chronicled in a Sports Illustrated cover story. This information that so many people have sought should be WP:PRESERVEd. Parker’s high school career seems to be as important to the reader as the entire biography of many NBA All-Star Game reserves.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) The current 33208 character article is not redundant with the 8233 character section in the main article and it is a streamlined version of the formerly deleted forked article that was 49260.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) The article satisfies WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ATH and it is chock full of high caliber WP:RS; Sports Illustrated did a cover story on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Forks or lack thereof for other athletes are irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some hinted that this page would make Jabari Parker's career seem more notable than other stars' like LeBron James', even though James had a feature length film (More Than a Game) about his high school career. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant. E.g., Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2013) and List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama are not evaluated based on whether George Washington or Abraham Lincoln had the same forks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * keep I'm not real thrilled with what I view as a run-around of the AfD/DRV. But judged on its merits, this meets WP:N and while it's more detail than I'd ever want, it's clearly got a ton of coverage in the real world.  Further, it seems very likely there is interest in this material.  What is overly detailed to one person with little interest in the topic can be darn interesting to another.  We're going to see books that spend a chapter or two on this topic, I don't see why we couldn't have a full page.  I endorsed the AfD at DRV and still feel it was the correct reading of the consensus.  But I don't see how deleting this helps the encyclopedia or is in line with our content guidelines.  The delete !votes feel like a variation of IDONTLIKEIT.  I agree that it's possible to cover something in too much detail, but I think that should be generally judged by sources, not by our own personal opinions.  Hobit (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As an editor with a dozen formerly deleted articles now at WP:GA, I do not feel i did a runaround AFD/DRV. This was an attempt to improve the encyclopedia just like my other 12 formerly deleted GAs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well lets take that last point to its logical extreme: One could write articles on every individual game played in a major sports league - and most minor leagues as well.  For the NHL or NBA, that's over 1200 articles for each regular season alone.  Nearly 2500 for Major League Baseball.  Even at the individual player level, how far do we allow this to go?  Jabari Parker's freshman college season?  There comes a point where we go beyond encyclopedic coverage and slam right into IINFO and NOTNEWS.  And yes, Jabari Parker does get a lot of coverage.  That is why he was one of the very few high school athletes to merit an article.  But article sets at this level of depth are both unencyclopedic (even by Wikipedia's standards) and fails numerous aspects of WP:NOT. That's my primary argument. Resolute 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a fair question where to draw the line. And it may well be we get consensus that this is below the line.  It's just that this article is better sourced than literally 99% of all of our articles.  I feel that's a very good sign that this isn't below the line.  I really don't understand how deleting well-sourced material is to the benefit of the encyclopedia.  Would one article per pro game be too much? For baseball certainly.  For NFL football?  It's more detail than I'd like, but not outrageous.  I think the season article per team are probably the right line 95% of the time (with exceptional games having an article perhaps)Hobit (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed there, and I think we have reached the right balance from a team season perspective with those general guidelines (give or take junk like this). I don't really want to get into multiple back and forths regarding the level of coverage this article proposes though.  I can only hope that if consensus once again goes against Tony, he will finally accept it and drop the stick. Resolute 04:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: asked me to clarify an edit I made to this AfD (see ). I hid the table of pageviews that he posted to this AfD as I felt it was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but if he feels it's important to his argument then that's fine. It's still irrelevant, though. The first AfD on this resulted in a thorough consensus that the content fork was unnecessary and improper, not because it was too long but because it existed at all. Several editors noted that there is an unencyclopedic level of trivial details included not just in the subject article but in the main article as well, and that a content fork for an athlete's high school career is WP:UNDUE detail, regardless of coverage. At deletion review, editors again noted that the fork presented an excruciating level of detail not necessary to cover for an athlete at this stage of their career, and the deletion was thoroughly endorsed. TonyTheTiger simply recreated the fork anyway, ignoring the consensus of both discussions. He argues that this is not WP:G4 because he's shortened the article, but that's beside the point. He recreated an article that was deleted per two discussions, and although he made some changes to it, the reasons for deletion are identical, and still apply to the recreated article. If it's not G4 then it's a snowball - the community already concluded this should be deleted. Twice. Ivanvector (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your user page suggests that you are quite a veteran of WP, whereas your argument sound like you are a newbie. The prior version of the main page and the fork at issue here were very different. At one time the main article was 46 KB and the fork was 49 KB. Arguments about the fork being unnecessary were largely based on redundancy. With a 22 KB main article (including 8KB high school section) and 33 KB fork those arguments may or may not be valid but at least need to be reconsidered. WP:G4 policy explicitly states that "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." You have to be sort of simpleminded to say a 49KB version and a 33KB version are substantially identical. I have obviously trimmed out a lot of the fluff. Regardless of consensus regarding the 49 KB version at AFD and DRV, that was about a different format of the encyclopedic content. Note that I did do extensive streamlining in Userspace to improve the article as suggested at G4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. The consensus at the last AFD was that the article in general was unencyclopedic and unnecessary. You can trim it down all you like, but it still presents the same fundamental problem. The article still violates Notnews because it covers the minutiae of Parker's life. Less minutiae, but still unimportant. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that earlier versions have been deleted is not relevant to this consideration. I have taken 12 formerly deleted (some multiple times) articles to WP:GA. You need to evaluate why more people were reading this article than many All-star reserves and determine what portion of that content needs to be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you really going to trot out the "I've taken 12 unrelated articles to GA" as a defence right after arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to other people's comments? Also, interesting rebuttal to Ivanvector.  I'm not really seeing argumentum ad hominem as an effective debate tactic, but ymmv. Also, only a couple arguments about the fork being unnecessary were due to size.  The majority, as Ivanvector notes, opposed on the argument that the entire page is UNDUE and unnecessary. Resolute 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't an argument to keep or delete based on other stuff existing or not existing. I was providing proof that deleted articles are not necessarily deleted forever. The fact that I have taken 12 formerly deleted articles (including 2 basketball players) to GA is proof of that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you were rebutting an argument that was never made? An issue here isn't that some articles might be recreated later, but that you performed an end-run around AFD and DR using a shady argument that can hardly be viewed as good faith. Resolute 01:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Shady? I have enumerated my four reasons above, which of those is shady?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already explained your sub-optimal behaviour in my opening statement. However, your "four reasons" are bunk.  Point 1: You are making an unsupported assumption.  You can't prove that readers were looking for a specific part of Parker's career, only that they were looking for information on Parker himself. Point 2: Adding 40k of bloat does not make the article less redundant.  Nor does trimming some of that fat (then disingenuously claiming that resolved the issues that led to deletion and endorsement). A pig caked in 10 lbs of mud is still a pig.  Point 3: That Parker's high school play gained coverage is not in and of itself a justification of a separate article. It only justified the existence of an article at Jabari Parker.  Wayne Gretzky was national news in Canada by age 10, but it would be asinine to write an article on Wayne Gretzky's youth hockey career for similar reasons. Point 4: Irrelevant as an argument for keeping this page.  Not a single point you have raised overcomes the multiple breaches of WP:NOT.  Resolute 04:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like to read about Gretzky's youth career, Lebron's high school career, O.J.'s college career, Pete Maravich's college career, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the fact that earlier versions were deleted is the only relevant consideration here. You continue to miss the point that two prior and recent discussions determined that Parker's high school career does not merit a separate article and should not have been forked in the first place. The size and quality of the fork is not at issue here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You continue to make the WP:G4 argument when it has already been overruled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I'm continuing to make it now. FTR, I disagree with 's decision to overturn the G4. The user was right to have speedied the article, for reasons I've noted above. Ivanvector (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal
 * Delete. I'll let some other admin click the magic buttons and see if this qualifies for G4. As for this current version of the article, I believe this is an excruciating amount of detail that is wholly unnecessary for an encyclopedia, despite the fact that we're not made out of paper. This level of detail is unnecessary and illegible, and the fact that the player was so closely followed by the media that we could have this kind of article doesn't mean that all those factoids (since, in the grand scheme of things, they are factoids) should be reproduced here. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This detail is too finite and concise for a high schooler's career (not withstanding only one mention of the subject's academic progress, which would probably be more paramount than every move the scouting sites made regarding their status). How many pictures do you need of a subject in an article? This belongs somewhere, but not here; the usual few paragraphs summing up their achievements seen in most pro player articles should suffice.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Very clearly a recreation of an already deleted article. The article has only cosmetic changes since it was last deleted. And beyond that it is still a very trivial fork. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This smells like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT since it is not possible to look at the 33KB version and 49KB version and deem them substantially identical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * a. non sequitur, b. it probably is possible. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly is possible, if the info added is the same sort of info that caused it to be deleted in the first place and that all that was done was trim a few sentences here and there without fixing the reason for the deletion then yes G4 applies. The whole idea behind G4 is that whatever issue that caused it to be deleted in the first place was fixed. In this case your changes didn't even remotely address the issues in the original discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * About that G4 remark--I compared the two versions, and how anyone could say the newer version (the one Tony moved from his sandbox) is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" defies belief. So a section on international play and a "personal" section were added (the latter full of the kind of trivia that probably got the article deleted in the first place), but the rest is, give or take a few dozen sentences that were either trimmed or added, and a few copyedits, exactly the same. So I endorse G4 deletion. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are comparing the version at issue in FAC2 and the version that was deleted based on FAC1. Are you comparing a 49.2KB version versus a 33.2 KB version? "international play and a "personal" section were added" is not correct. You must be looking at the wrong versions. this is the diff between the 49.2KB and 33.2KB versions that you consider identical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: I really don't care how long the parent article gets myself.  But I don't think we should start any precedent of having articles about the "high school career" of any athlete.  As far as I can tell, this has been the first (e.g., I can find no other "high school career" articles nor deletion discussions about such).  We faced a similar, though wider spreading, dilemma in July 2012, when the "Famous person on twitter" articles started.  We have to take care before creating subdivision articles on people, and I don't see a case here.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , The Twitter issue was vastly different. The version that I am preserving is the bulk of what was in the main Jabari Parker article 6 months ago when there was nothing else to include in the article. There was never a point at which you could go to Ashton Kutcher's or Barack Obama's article and see only content about his twitter persona and there was never a point in Kutcher's or Obama's life when the summary of the notable elements of their life is what was in their twitter article. This is an attempt to WP:PRESERVE what was formerly the bulk of the main article that was being read by 1000 people a day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony, I have no problem personally with preserving the content, but it should go into the subject's article. What content should be in his article is an editorial debate, not an AfD issue.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the current version of the Jabari Parker is fine. We don't need to add factoids like "Parker trimmed his list of schools to three" because no one (except TonyTheTiger will care about that in 7 years. The facts are that he attended Simeon, played one year at Duke, and joined the NBA. For instance, we have an article on Bill Gates, but we don't need to mention things like "Gates was at a meeting on May 16, 1987" in the main article, even if it is well-sourced. On a related note, Jahlil Okafor's article is becoming unmanageable large as well, and he's younger than Parker. Is High school career of Jahlil Okafor in the works next? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 00:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, we all know you are bullshitting on the fact that no one but me would care. The page would not have zero readers. The readership would be small. (say 200-500 viewers a month, which is in the order of magnitude of forks like Electoral history of Theodore Roosevelt, List of places named for George S. Patton, Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2012) or Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak). Unless you believe that I am the equivalent of 200-500 people you should stop saying no one but me would care. Sure that is a small fraction of the readers for the broader article, but a fork is for the small fraction of readers who care about details. Furthermore, any argument based on readership is really not very logical. Do you really mean to say we don't want the page because it would only have the same level of interest as Electoral history of Theodore Roosevelt, List of places named for George S. Patton, Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2012), or Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak, which is what a truthful assessment of its likely readership would be.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My argument is not so much based on readership, but more on the triviality of much of the information. Indeed, you are the one that is pushing the readership statistics, which have been refuted time and again as irrelevant. Just because people want to read about Parker does not mean that they care about him participating in a workout for Bill Self. Have you considered that the spike in readership for this article has been because of the AfDs? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 12:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He did not have a workout with Bill Self, which would be trivial. The only workout that I mention is an astoundingly unusual one in which he announced he was hosting an open gym workout and 42 schools attended. Did you ever play high school basketball? Imagine that you say you are having an open gym and Coach K arrives in a limo with assistant coaches in tow. Then 41 other schools send coaches. Among the small fraction of readers who might click through to the article for his high school career, this is not a trivial story. I am not talking about the spike in readership due to the AFD, I do not believe the readership would be zero if the article were kept based on viewership data I have given you a long run estimate. P.S. you might be astounded at how many people are voting on this AFD without even reading the article. Look at the hourly stats. Many of the delete votes are coming with no one having read the article for 6 or 8 hours prior. Don't you think it is wrong to vote because someone told you to come here and vote delete or just because you saw an old version of the article several months ago. Look at all the WP:HOCKEY voters here who didn't even read the article because told them to. Very recently on a non-HOCKEY issue she led the charge with a HOCKEY posse to take a vote against my editing on a subject that had previously been 8–2 in my favor. A vote that the article has trivial facts means nothing if you have not read the article. There are no votes here about it being trivial that even mention trivial facts from the article. If all the high school content is trivial, it should have been deleted when he was in high school.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Tony, you are still glossing over the fact that the entire article was already deleted for being needlessly trivial, and that deletion was endorsed on review. Those are the proper processes for determining whether information should be WP:PRESERVEd or not. You went out of process to recreate the article against consensus, and now you're bludgeoning this AfD to try to show in any way you can that those earlier discussions were invalid. This is not productive behaviour for a Wikipedia editor, and making personal attacks against the many editors here who disagree with you is not helping your case. Ivanvector (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is SOP for Tony when he doesn't get his way. He starts pouting, makes assumptions of bad faith and starts attacking people because he has no other recourse. He knows, and has been told more than once, than I am not a "she", but Tony refers to me by the wrong gender in a bid to be deliberately offensive. It's childish and amusing, but little else. That said, don't be surprised if he starts calling people racist for disagreeing with him at some point. Resolute 15:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * and your WP:CANVASSing of WP:HOCKEY member is SOP. It will show up in the data if you deny it. I have been watching hourly page views and know your Canadian friends have been voting without reading the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only other WP:HOCKEY regular to comment here is, and in all probability, it was your own post at my talk page that brought him here. I realize by your change in tactics toward casting aspersions that you believe you aren't likely 'winning' this debate, but good lord man, at least carry yourself with some dignity. Resolute 15:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been a lot of Canadian flags on user pages of the Delete voters for me to believe that only one HOCKEY member has voted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha! You got me.  is a WP:HOCKEY editor acting in stealth.  We spent nearly five years from the point that he joined Wikipedia planning for this very moment.  We tried to fool you by having Ivan routinely participate in many other AFDs while also not editing hockey articles.  But you, Tony, you weren't fooled. {evil mastermind voice}Curses! Foiled again.{/evil mastermind voice} .  I'm too lazy to be equally snarky with respect to, so please re-read my previous sentence but swap names. Thanks, Resolute 16:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you made a statement on why people are voting without reading the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you stopped beating your wife? Resolute 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I take that as a confession to having CANVASSED.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah cause me reading your rather heated comment on his talk page couldn't possibly have peaked my interest in what was going on at this Afd. If anyone is to "blame" for me being here its you. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting off the rails, but I'll bite. The article is about Jabari Parker's high school career, yes? I inferred that from the title, Jabari Parker's high school career. We already agreed as a community twice that we don't need a separate page (any separate page) on Jabari Parker's high school career. Therefore, since this is a page on Jabari Parker's high school career, and the community agreed to delete the page already, twice, I !voted delete. I expect that most people can follow this logic without needing to cook up conspiracy theories about all Canadians being hockey-fan meatpuppets. I am indeed Canadian, and a fan of the great game of hockey, and if you think that makes me a meatpuppet then I cordially invite you to open a case at WP:SPI and we'll see who the real hosers are! *evil laugh, eh?* Then again, if I'm somehow mistaken and the article is not about Jabari Parker's high school career, then let me know right away so I can change my !vote to a renaming of some sort, though I will puzzle about why a page which has as a title Jabari Parker's high school career is a page about anything other than Jabari Parker's high school career, which as we've already covered is a subject which does not warrant a separate page, per community consensus. Ivanvector (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - come on, this discussion was had and finished. There is a ridiculous level of detail in the Parker article as it is - real encyclopedias have editors for a reason. Re-creating an article because one didn't like the deletion result seems to go against the spirit of WP. Rikster2 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , Recreation is not a matter of creating an article that covers the same topic, if there are significant differences in the versions, it is not considered a recreation. This has far less detail than the prior version. A third of the content was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tony, but that's BS. This subject isn't worth it's own article and that was a central theme of the first AfD.  A well fleshed out account of Parker's HS career should be able to fit as a section of Parker's article.  Writing about every minute detail of Parker's HS career simply makes this stuff too dense for readers to wade through and get at what is actually important.  You clearly are trying to end-run the AfD process here IMO.  Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , Having recreated 12 formerly deleted articles that are now WP:GAs, I consider this a normal attempt to refine content in keeping with the prior AFD as opposed to an end run. If you say something is unnecessarily detailed and I remove 1/3rd of it as I did in this case, that is clearly an attempt to respond to your complaint. There are widely varying amounts of detail sought from the encyclopedia and the purpose of forks is to provide a higher level of detail than might be appropriate for a main article. Look at my current WP:FAC nomination for example. Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak is a subject that can be easily summarized in a section of a main biography, but for some extensive detail provides a more desirable presentation of content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weren't you the one who said WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS wasn't a good argument? Who says the Hershiser article should exist either?  Two wrongs don't make a right.  What is currently in the Parker article about his HS career is sufficient. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that you are the creator of Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak, so of course you think both articles are necessary. Rikster2 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously if it is my current FAC, I was involved. It is no surprise that I am the creator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , What do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for all or sufficient for most? Surely, you don't believe it would get zero hits per day. I am guessing in the long run it might get the same number of hits lots of commonly forked content such as Electoral history of Theodore Roosevelt or List of places named for George S. Patton (or Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak, for that matter). I am not saying it should be kept because they are kept, I am saying that there is a non-zero number of viewers who would like to read it regardless of what else is kept. It is common to fork content that provides a level of detail beyond that which is sufficient for most readers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is a small subset of readers who care so much about Parker's HS career that they want a gnat's ass level of detail why should the encyclopedia cater to that if that is not what the vast majoriy of readers are looking for? It's an encyclopedia, not an index of biographies.  Just like the difference you'd see in a paper encyclopedia vs. a biography of an individual.  Also funny you'd compare Parker to Theodore Roosevelt (I won't discuss a list article being compared to this prose article - a forked list of Parker's awards would be fine once it is long enough to warrant an article, like Michael Jordan).  None of this changes the fact that you've re-created (with fairly minor changes IMO) an article that has been AfD'd and that AfD was upheld after review - that is trying to end run around WP intent and policies.  You clearly have a lot of energy around this and will debate the topic long after the rest of us will want to - it is my hope the closing admin will recognize this when they evaluate the final discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , since when is removing a third of the readable prose of an article considered minor changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when did this subject suddenly become a needed fork? The main thrust of the AfD was that it shouldn't exist.  Changing the prose on a subject not worth of an article does not substantiate re-creating it because you didn't like the result of the AfD or review.  And STOP paging me to this article.  I will check back if I want to, but I do not wish to receive alerts when you respond to what I write. Rikster2 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Consensus at the first AFD was that this article should not exist in any form, so any changes to the prose, significant or minor, are irrelevant. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect against recreation, and consider sanctions against TonyTheTiger if he continues to recreate it after being rebuffed repeatedly. (I also would endorse Discospinster's G4 if this were at DRV.) he split this article from Jabari Parker. I did not see any indication that content has been merged back in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jabari_Parker&dir=prev&offset=20140310221959&limit=175&action=history the relevant history]. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In case you have not been following along the nominator has virtually confessed to CANVASSING so this whole discussion is polluted. Also, merging this back in is not appropriate. When I split this out people subsequently pared down the main article to its current state.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me! You know damn well people like me, EDDY and JWeiss were not in any way canvassed to this discussion and you have no idea about anyone else.  This is getting ridiculous ... Rikster2 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, Tony often resorts to accusations of bad faith when he is balked. Usually he is the only one acting in bad faith.  I've seen it many times and am used to it. Of course, we all know why he hasn't gone to ANI about my supposed canvassing - the high probability of a WP:BOOMERANG.  But I do agree with Tony on one thing - much of this should not be merged back into the main article.  Wikipedia exists to write encyclopedia articles, not entire books. Resolute 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not too thrilled personally about being repeatedly accused of canvassing. If this is Tony's pattern then it needs to stop. I have posted a request for review at WP:AN/I. Ivanvector (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per many of the arguments above and per the fact that this was delete before and endorsed properly. I'm sure this can be handled appropriately in the main article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete We are here to summarize, and that means avoiding undue weight. While the player's high school athleticism is on the map, there is simply far too much detail for an encyclopedia to be including here, given how much of this is written as a time line and not an attempt to capture the high points as to why his pre-college career was important. Argubably, with as much is written about sports compared to any other topic, any major player could have their high school career, and their college career, all documented to this great of a degree, but we don't do that being a tertiary, summary source.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Aside from endorsing the procedural deletions beforehand, I largely agree with Masem's summary. This is four years of a player's career that's just starting. The sources are there, but that doesn't mean that we ignore prescriptions to be a general encyclopedia that avoids excessive and trivial details. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I declined the G4 placed on the article, because I do not see consensus to use it. SNOW would be another matter.  DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's just reams of trivia, which fails the GNG. I have no doubt that the author has some good reason for repeatedly pushing this into article-space and then bickering with all those who disagree, but whatever that reason is, it's certainly not a net benefit to readers. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. As said when proposing speedy deletion: "Screw AfD, this is a straight-up G4. This article was deleted because the very premise was rejected, not the content. Trimming does not make it different from the previous version." &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete A gross misuse of notability policy, let alone anything else. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for obsessive trivia, believe it or not, and shouldn't be used as some kind of playground for editors as it clearly is here. The article has no merit doktorb wordsdeeds 10:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is auditioning for the upcoming season of The Walking Dead, apparently. This could have been dealt with via either G4 or a snow close (the  only keeps are the author and a misguided sympathy vote), but if we have to play the process out, this is just mind-numbingly excruciating detail for a teenage boy's basketball career.  It's more a of a sad commentary on the 21st century media that they have written this much to this extend on an athlete who hasn't even gone pro yet.  The project is going to have to be more on guard in the future against this sort of thing lest it becomes drowned in minutiae and statistics. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. This exercise in time-wasting is so execrable that I just had to call a university professor to tell me what phrase I should use to describe it. The previous attempt to have it G4d was correct and I am questioning Parker's notability.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin(s): please be aware that the last time Tony asked for this to be userfied after it was G4'd, it was to run around AfD and DRV and to recreate the article against the consensus that it was unfit in its entirety, resulting in the current discussion. It should not be userfied, it should be expunged. If you have 49 rotten apples, you don't just throw out 16 of them and use the rest in a pie. The problem is not the content, it's the subject. Tony has demonstrated that he does not understand this. Apologies all around for assuming bad faith, however he has already asked again. Ivanvector (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (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.