Deletion of Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'm not real thrilled with what I view as a run-around of the AfD/DRV.  But judged on its merits, this meets  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . This exercise in time-wasting is so execrable that Road to Europe|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: ul|TonyTheTiger}} asked me to clarify an edit I made to this AfD (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&diff=609568915&oldid=609034100). 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career|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 Jabari Parker|main article as well, and that a content fork for an athlete's high school career is  detail, regardless of coverage. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 6|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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:G4||WP:SNOW)