Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers


 * 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   speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, no outstanding delete !votes. Courcelles 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

So what???? copied from below: "to me this list appears to be breaking the NOT#3 policy ("Excessive listing of statistics.") and is of very limited notability outside the sport. Even if A manager thinks they are the strongest pitchers, I do not know how is that any more notable than listing the starting roster of a soccer or a basketball team at the beginning of the season chosen by A manager.
 * I do expect a ton of baseball fans to probably snowball it, so I would prefer to have the opinions of non-fans of the sport. Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions.  — Nomader  ( Talk ) 04:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I vote, three things come to mind: (1) Wouldn't it have been better to bring this up at WP:BASEBALL before starting an AfD? (2) If you really want an AfD, shouldn't you nominate all of them at once, rather than just nominating one of them? (3) Are you aware that some of these pages have achieved featured list status? How do you figure that articles that passed FLC aren't notable? --Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Um...someone care to translate that rambling, incoherent mess of a rationale for this nomination so that I can figure out what I'm voting on? -Dewelar (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I've got it...the rationale is pretty much purely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still, I'll respect the nominator's request for "non-fans" to speak first... -Dewelar (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Could the nominator give a more specific rationale as to why this article should be deleted? The nomination was rather meandering and as Dewelar said, it mostly just dregged up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nomader  ( Talk ) 05:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply No, it is not IDONTLIKEIT, but instead WHOCARES. Opening Day is not a defining point in the baseball season like playoffs are. Being a starting pitcher in a minor event of the season is not notable. Nergaal (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WHOCARES states, "... personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." I've never really been a hardcore baseball fan myself and I've never edited a baseball list here– however, I can say that Opening Day does seem to be pervasively important in baseball and the starting pitcher of the first game shows who managers feel is the strongest pitcher on a team at that point in the season. I found the list to actually be a pretty fascinating read in its odd statistical quirks. It needs work, as I've commented at the FLC and will continue to do so throughout the period of this AfD, but I feel overall that this is a net positive to Wikipedia and a valid subject for an article. Nomader  ( Talk ) 05:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To my surprise I just noticed that half of the articles in the category are already FLs, which means 1) I should have clicked around before AfDing; 2) editors will be extremely reticent in voting delete. Anyways, to me this list appears to be breaking the NOT#3 policy ("Excessive listing of statistics.") and is of very limited notability outside the sport. Even if A manager thinks they are the strongest pitchers, I do not know how is that any more notable than listing the starting roster of a soccer or a basketball team at the beginning of the season chosen by A manager. Nergaal (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted elsewhere, being the Opening Day starting pitcher for a team carries a status that starting at another position does not. For one thing, unlike other positions, starting pitchers do not play every day (or at least haven't in over a century). As for the NOT#STATS argument, the only statistics I see on the entire nominated list are the game scores, so that's an awfully low threshold on which to base that argument. -Dewelar (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Non-baseball fan chipping in here. To me there seem to be two issues here: 1) what is the significance of a pitcher starting on Opening Day in particular?  Presumably List of Chicago White Sox 37th-game-of-the-season starting pitchers would be laughed off WP, but what makes the list for those who pitched in game 1 more, I dunno, important....? 2) is there particular significance in an opening day pitcher, as opposed to any other position?  Why not List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting shortstops?  If someone could answer those, I'd be in a better position to comment on this AfD.  Hope what I'm driving at with those two points makes some sort of sense....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a team's starting pitcher on Opening Day is seen as an honor and a mark of status - an acknowledgment that the pitcher in question is his team's preeminent starting pitcher (commonly termed an "ace" or "#1 starter"). The situation with shortstops isn't analogous, in that teams do not rotate between five different shortstops game-by-game throughout the year, as they do with starting pitchers. Teams will typically use a set lineup, with the exception of the starting pitchers, who need to rest for several days after pitching before they can pitch again. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * any sources to back it up with? The better the better. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response to your post below. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete 1) appealing to the existence of other similar lists is a bad argument. 2) a gnews search imply that opening day starting pitchers are not a notable topic. If someone can convincence me that it is, I would be happy to support/keep this as a content fork of "list of opening day starting pitchers". Sandman888 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your search was malformed - the common term of art within baseball is "Opening Day starter", not "Opening Day starting pitcher". ["Opening day starter" baseball] returns 115,000 Google news hits, as well as 221 book citations. A few of those will refer to position players (which is why the list under discussion is located at the less-common but also less-ambiguous title), but the vast, vast majority discuss pitchers. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Convinced by the appeal to outside data I've struck my oppose. 1) I will however remind people to remain civil, it is perfectly reasonably to AfD an article if the notability is questioned no matter how many similar article exist. 2) This AfD does in no way qualify for speedy keep and should run its course. Sandman888 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I will acknowledge that the honor of starting on opening day is not laid out as clearly as it should be in these lists. However, it is an honor, and as all of the arguments for deletion being bandied about are a stretch, I say  Speedy Keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a Speedy Keep, just a Keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources found through Google news and Google books– the lists do not do an adequate job of stressing the importance of the Opening Day pitcher, but it is an important aspect of baseball nonetheless. Although I respect Nergaal's decision to bring this list to AfD and I see why he brought it here, I feel that the notability for this kind of list is not just on a fan, in-universe basis as he suggests, and as such feel that the list should be kept. Nomader  ( Talk ) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. "So What?" is not a valid reason to delete. Opening day starters have received much coverage in reliable sources, more so than the other games that nominator mentions. The article is sourced fairly well so this nomination seems to be just personal bias on the part of the nominator. Spanneraol (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep So, now you're seriously arguing that the scores of the games on the list (which, as I have said above, are THE ONLY STATS ON THE PAGE) qualifies as too many stats? Wow...just...wow. Embarrassing. -Dewelar (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a seriously embarrassing misrepresentation of my reasoning. I am not sure useful is this discussion after you said above that you would abstain from this AfD only to start throwing unfounded statements when people start presenting opinions against your own. Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, you're the one who brought up WP:NOT as an argument. What other stats are there on the page? Perhaps you're also counting the team win-loss record in such games, but as that is part of the article's prose the guideline does not apply to that. Seriously, if you can tell me what else is stats beyond the game scores, I will apologize and withdraw my above comment. I have also struck the "speedy" portion of my !vote per Sandman888's note.
 * Second of all, I never said I would abstain, I said I was going to allow non-fans to speak first per your request. Your arguments, beyond the one about Opening Day not being important outside the baseball world (which, despite your misuse of the term "in-universe", could be considered relevant), have been thin at best.
 * Third of all, I'd posit that, from your initial language in your nomination, you meant this nomination to be disruptive. You certainly meant it to be insulting to baseball fans. -Dewelar (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleting the original nomination language is actually bad form because many of the above comments were in response to it and a closing admin might not understand the full scope of the conversation. Spanneraol (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a good point. When I saw the nominator deleted the original text of his nomination, I thought about reverting it. The guidelines on AfD are clear that striking it out, as you did initially, is the way to go, but it wasn't firm enough that I would actually revert the edit myself. You're entitled to qualify your original post, but it should remain part of the record.  --Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid deletion rationale. Default to Keep. Vodello (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - regardless of whether the nominator likes it, opening day starters are notable, as indicated by the sources and coverage each opening day of the starters. Further, several similar articles are featured lists, indicating a consensus that they topic meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Requesting withdrawing if that is appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets the notability guidelines of WP:N and the guidelines for lists in WP:CLN. BRMo (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (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.