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. JohnCD (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jabari Parker's high school career (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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)[reply]

• Comment WP is pretty good at getting rid of things that are not notable or verifiable. It's probably not as good with controlling verifiable detail. I'm sure this subject passed WP:GNG, so interested on ideas on how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that my statement is not misunderstood, WP:N says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not need separate articles for sections of most people's lives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we don't even need a wikipedia article for most people. What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary fork. Parker's article needs to be trimmed, it has too much needless information. There is no way that Parker's high school career is more notable than LeBron James, or Kobe Bryant, or any other megastar. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a WP article does not mean he is more notable than LeBron James, who has a whole movie about his high school career. Certainly, you don't think a WP article is more important that an feature length film.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This really just appears to be a direct copy of the normal Jabari Parker article with the high school section fleshed out more and the other sections trimmed (but oddly, not completely removed). I'm almost tempted to argue that this could meet CSD A10. -IagoQnsi 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - really unnecessary to have a separate article just for the guy's HS career. There is a lot of excessive detail in this - I'd recommend trimming it back and keeping it in Parker's article, but in a reduced form. The article is too long for people to use it effectively, but the solution isn't to break it into separate articles. That isn't intuitive for readers at all. Rikster2 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of a fork is to have extra detail for those who want it. It would be more logical to see how many pageviews a fork gets before determining it is unnecessary. It might be the case that a lot of people want to read the detail. Why don't we leave the article out there and monitor page views to see what the reader wants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is content that was on WP until yesterday in the Jabari Parker article. In order to make way for future content, I WP:SPLIT it out. I think a lot of things are going to get thrown out with the bathwater in trimming the main article and this is a way to WP:PRESERVE it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten years from now, when Parker is playing in the NBA, who will care if Parker appeared on Good Morning Alerica, or if he trimmed his list of schools to five, or if he played at a more social media dominated era than Derrick Rose? I certainly won't. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have made a whole movie about LeBron James' high school career. What is wrong with having a WP article about Jabari Parker's.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "They" (i.e. anyone who so chooses) is free to make a whole movie about whatever they want. If that movie gets wide distribution or wins some major awards or otherwise becomes notable, then it warrants a Wikipedia article about it. That some some subject could possibly be meaty enough for a whole movie is not a criterion for warranting a Wikipedia article about it. While More Than a Game appears to be notable in its own right, do we need LeBron James's high school career? I think that topic can be and is covered sufficiently at LeBron James. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • This documentarian style is the problem I have with the article. It's not supposed to document every bit of the recruiting process. Writing an article is about selecting content relevant to the uninformed reader first, and then presenting that in a comprehensive way. A basketball player is notable for, well, playing basketball, so Parker's article should be centered around his actual play. And with basketball being a team sport, that doesn't mean indiscriminately listing tons of individual stats, but referring to his teams' results and his personal contributions. Of course, that includes awards he received and some public statements about him, but we can goodheartedly leave most of the surrounding buzz to the media. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an interesting discussion as Bagumba has stated. This AFD is unfortunate IMO because the Jabari Parker article is more how all Wikipedia articles should be, instead of most of what we have. So my vote is to keep this article, but I think we need to summarize better the high school section of the main Parker article. When it's done, the main article should only have a few paragraphs about his HS career and the reader can go to the HS article for more details. That would reduce concern over the WP:CFORK deletion arguments. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This fork bodes to set a really bad precedent, so let's nip it in the bud right here. We do not need to be splitting up biography articles for athletes into sub-articles by period or level. That fosters excessive detail and ushers in real lack of balance across sports articles on Wikipedia. Let's get every biography article in good shape on its own before even think about this. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an article about the rare high school career that is significant enough that the subject was worth writing about in and being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Athletes that are the subject of Sports Illustrated feature stories in high school are rare. What are you actually nipping in the bud. It is not like every player who has a WP article would need to be split. For the rare individual who has the type of career that he has had in which he has accomplished numerous rare feats of excellence, the reader may be interested in reading about that sort of detail. Just like not every player will have a feature film about his high school career, not every player will have sufficient content to create a high school fork.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note that we are not dealing with some overhyped prima donna. We are dealing with a basketball player who is currently on pace to have one of if not the best freshman season in the history of the Atlantic Coast Conference. He has surpassed all of the greatest freshmen in Duke history by many metrics already. Although he has not matched Anthony Davis' accomplishments, he has not disappointed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, your second comment just above is utterly irrelevant. Parker could be averaging 70 points and 30 rebounds a games this year at Duke and it would change nothing about the argument. As for the first point just above, while there may indeed be a wealth of coverage of Parker's high school career, it's certainly less than the coverage we've had of Michael Jordan's NBA career, right? Do we need that article too? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree that the relevant concern is that this is the rare high school career that is significant enough that the subject was worth writing about in and being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated and his Duke numbers are irrelevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written as if you tried to add everything you could find about Parker to it. You even have tweets (which are not reliable, by the way) narrowing the list of prospective schools down to ten. Tony, this is excessive information. I could write an article on Lebron James in 2013 and explain how many points he scored every game and what he did, etc. LeBron's career is followed by the media far more than Jabari Parker's. But wouldn't you say that would be unnecessary, trivial even? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are responding as if this was an article written from scratch. It is a fork of the content in a 60KBish article. When LeBron James gets to 60KB, I would endorse a fork rather than a trimming.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Well-written, well-sourced, but overflowing with utterly trivial content, much of which already appears in the main Jabari Parker article anyway. Detail in an encyclopedia is one thing, but this article takes things to absurd extremes. Delete, then remove the minutiae from the main Jabari Parker article as well. Drpickem (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Jabari Parker's Wikipedia page is already overly-detailed. All things being equal, I prefer not to delete well-written, well-sourced articles, but I just don't think any athlete should have articles on individual phases of their career. Orser67 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Parker has extensive coverage, yes, but seriously: the main article needs to be trimmed. This article is, to quote Drpickem, "verflowing with utterly trivial content, much of which already appears in the main Jabari Parker article", and is completely unnecessary. Parker's self-declared "biographer" needs to realize that, by including this minutiae, he is actually doing a disservice to Parker, as the most important / notable aspects are being buried amidst stuff that has no long term effect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2014 (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.