Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups


 * 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 No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of players who aren't notable, an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information; no encyclopedic value. Ksy92003 (talk)  22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC) otherwise it's very crufty. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. This information is more suited to a sports almanac. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All these players are notable.. they are all major league baseball players... the information is certainly notable.. these are the opening day starting lineups for the Dodgers since they came to Los Angeles.. it is information that is certainly as relevant and informative as many of the other baseball lists on wikipedia. It certainly has value. No valid reason for deletion. Spanneraol 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Erm, the players are all notable by definition as they've played in a professional league (WP:BIO). As for the article itself, I'll leave it to people who actually know about baseball to decide how much significance there is to opening day starting line-ups - to me it looks slightly listcrufty, but as a Brit I'm probably not really the one to judge Iain99 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the fact that they all were opening day starters for a team gives them instant notability?  A player isn't notable because of the fact that there was one particular game that they played in.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment They are all notable because they all played Major League Baseball. If they weren't notable they would not even have pages on wikipedia. Spanneraol 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For your reference the pertinent guidelines are at WP:BIO that state a person who plays at the professional level of a sport are generally considered notable for that fact alone. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Spanneraol, I'm not sure you understand me. I'm not denying that the players are notable; I feel they are all notable for the fact that they all played a Major League game.  What I'm saying is that they aren't notable because they were on a team's opening day roster.  Listing all the opening day starters (a player playing one particular game for any team isn't notable) is listing indiscriminate information.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ksy, I disagree.. The opening day starters dont just play that one game.. these are the guys that started the season.. That has value as a historical look at who the starting players were for the team at the start of the season.. For fans of the team or people interested in baseball history it has notable value. Many lists of baseball players are on wiki, this one has as much value as many of the other ones. Spanneraol 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing: the list is an exact replicate of Baseball-reference's page. This is copyvio and is not allowed on Wikipedia.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not an exact duplicate of there page.. The information came from them, but information can not be copyrighted.. The table is different, the links are different, it was not copied and pasted.. Spanneraol 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't an exact duplicate? Did you even bother to look at Baseball-references's page?  It's the exact same format.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The information can not be copyrighted.. It is a similar table, but not the same.. not a copyright violationSpanneraol 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're so confident that it isn't the same, then please tell me how. Ksy92003  (talk)  23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I already have.. different formatting, different links, different ordering of the data, much less extraneous information.. etc. Spanneraol 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean specifically: what is the difference between the formats, how are the links different, how are they ordered differently, what extraneous information? I fail to see anything from the Wikipedia article that isn't on Baseball-reference's page.  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The b-r links go to B-r pages, the links here go to the wiki pages, the B-R page contains lots of other information about who won, who lost, the teams that played, they have many other charts comparing different lineups.. they have other years going back earlier... again, information is not copyrightable. Spanneraol 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between taking partial information from a page and taking partial information from a page in whole. And I'm not talking about the different lineups, who won the game, etc.  I'm talking about "what on the Wikipedia article isn't on Baseball-reference's page."  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not matter.. the information about who played in the games is free and can be recovered from multiple other sources of box scores. Spanneraol 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But the format of the table and everything on the page is 100% similar to Baseball-reference's page on this topic. It goes "catcher, 1B, 2B, etc.," most recent years on the top and earlier years on the bottom... that information is EXACTLY the same as Baseball-reference's page.  Because of the exact similarities, this is what makes it copyvio.  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The format of the table was done before I saw that other page. The information can only be done so many ways. If you want me to switch where the years are I can attempt to do that.. Good grief! Spanneraol 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't think you understand. The chart itself isn't the reason why it's copyvio.  It's because all the information on Wikipedia's article is copied from another cite.  But that aside, the article is still a list of non-notable information, which is the reason why I nominated it.  I didn't notice it was the same until after I nominated it.  But many problems can arise because of this copyright issue.  You still don't understand that the article is copyvio.  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the information is free and in the public domain.. it being taken from one site or many sites it is still free information and not a copyright violation. The information was taken from one site because that site had it arranged nicely.. it could also have been taken from several other sites.. This information is from box scores which are in the public domain... and thus not a copyright violation.. Spanneraol 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete please read WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT, the notabilty case is moot here as we are talking about a list here, not the players of the list, with that reasoning, every list on pointless subjects gets articles, because they have related to notable people. Jaranda wat's sup 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This list is just as valid as other baseball lists, such as List of Major League Baseball replacement players, List of oldest living Major League Baseball players, Major League Baseball players who have hit 30 or more home runs before the All-Star break, etc. We were discussing the players because that was one of the nominators points.  Still have yet to hear a good reason for removing this list. Spanneraol 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping an article Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You know Jaranda, if you would actualy post a real reason why you want this deleted, then it would be easier to argue.. but you just keep linking to irrelevant wikipedia guideline pages. 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant?, those are guidelines that the article doesn't meet. Jaranda wat's sup 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which guidelines does the article not meet? 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:CP, WP:N. Ksy92003  (talk)  23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And how does it fail these? Just siting pages doesnt prove your point.. and I've already countered all those arguments.
 * WP:NOT: An indiscriminate collection of information.
 * WP:LISTCRUFT: an "indiscriminate/trivial list."
 * WP:CP: Copyright violation in current state
 * WP:N: The fact that they started the season doesn't make the players notable. Ksy92003  (talk)  00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If anything, the info can be used in the page for each season, but
 * Keep Sports generally gets a "bye" in Wikipedia, and this is encylopedic even by baseball encyclopedia standards. Interesting format for identifying the starting lineups for each year.  Mandsford 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:INTERESTING Jaranda wat's sup 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure if you've read the entire discussion, Mandsford, but the format is copyvio; the format is exactly similar to Baseball-reference's page, that and it's an indiscriminate collection of information and non-notable, as well as not being truly encyclopedic content, in the first place. Ksy92003  (talk)  23:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, if it's a copyright violation, then it gets deleted even if we all vote to keep. And I see your point that this is lifted directly from baseball-reference.com.  To be strictly technical, I'm not sure that the website's information is copyrighted.  However, I abwhore plagiarism, and it is clear that someone else's work has been pirated here.  Thus, you have actually persuaded me.  I change my vote. Mandsford 21:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, it is not a copy violation as the information is free.. It is not indiscriminate information as it is about a particular topic... and it is notable.. and the fact that other sites have similar pages proves that. Spanneraol 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Information as a bare state is free. Information in the same style and format as something else is not.  If you tell Baseball-reference that it isn't copyvio when it's exactly the same as Baseball-reference's page, you won't be able to convince them that you didn't take it directly from Baseball-reference, which is the basis of copyvio.  Ksy92003  (talk)  23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Being similar to something else is not a copyright violation. It is NOT exactly the same.. I did not copy and paste their pages.. I took the information, which is free and available to everyone, made my own chart, and typed everything in myself, making my own links for the names... It was a lot of work.. just copying their page as you suggest would be much easier but that is not what happened no matter what you keep repeating. Spanneraol 23:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * God, you just fail to understand. I don't know if you'll ever understand.  Jaranda and I have provided at least 4 reasons, and you deny them all.  I don't know how you can possibly deny the fact that the article is similar enough to Baseball-reference's page to sue you for plagirism if they wanted to.  The information is free; getting the information from Baseball-reference and using the exact same format as they do without their permission is something completely different and illegal, not just by Wikipedia policy, but by law.  Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.  Without permission from Baseball-reference, you can't use their information and replicate it in the exact same format as they do, whether you left out extraneous information or not.  Ksy92003  (talk)  00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)\
 * Again, it is NOT exactly the same format and on a recent discussion on the WP:Baseball boards someone posted a conversation with B-Rs guy where he said    * <<>> These were used by hand entering data, which he has given permission for. It is not the exact same format, similar yes but not "the exact same format"...  You can cite whatever things you want, it doesnt make what you are saying true... information and box scores are free in the public domain and can be used in whatever charts people come up with..
 * That comment was in response to the query about using PARTIAL stats and PARTIAL information, not an entire page's information, such as what you have done. And for some reason, you still deny the fact that the formats aren't the same.  I don't have the slighest clue how you could possibly deny it, as looking at both Wikipedia's article and B-R's page, it looks exactly the same as far as the format of the table.  Ksy92003  (talk)  00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is similar, it is not exactly the same. How many other ways can you format this data? And it did not use the entire pages information as you certainly admitted that I left out lots of the data that was on that page.
 * It doesn't matter that you didn't use all the information. It's the fact that the information that you did use was taken in its exact state as it was found.  It doesn't matter if you didn't take the entire article and reproduce it, but you took a large part of another person's hard work and reproduced it exactly without making any additions on your own.  Ksy92003  (talk)  00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats complete hogwash... I made the table and started entering data before finding that page.. it simply made it easier. I had to type everything in myself... I did not copy and paste their charts.. their chart and mine are different.. It is not taken "in the exact state as found" there site had links to B-R pages, used just the players last names, so in adition to typing everything myself I added links, first names, etc.. that were not on there page.. so you can not say I didnt make any additions on my own.
 * Comment You folks are going around in circles on something that isn't even germane to this page. Let's decide first whether there should be a page like this.  If the answer is no, then the copyvio question is moot.  If the answer is yes, then the question can be brought to a more suitable venue. Matchups 01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Meaning #7 of WP:LISTCRUFT seems to apply here. If the information is notable (and it probably is), it would be better presented in the individual season articles. (Also much easier to give it context on a season-by-season basis.) --Fabrictramp 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just raw data. Raw data is good for aid in creating an encyclopedia article but is not itself an encyclopedia article. This falls under indescriminate collection of information and functions similar to a directory as well. Indrian 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a list.. lists are often just data or lists of names.
 * Delete: Sorry, too crufty even for me. Opening day isn't really all that important in the grand scheme of things.  It's one individual game.  If a guy is hurt in spring training and is not quite ready for opening day then the list here might show the name of some 3rd stringer who played 2 games his whole career.  Who cares?  Show me who played most of the games at each position each year and maybe I'd be interested.  (I've even compiled lists like that in my spare time).  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this falls under navigational purposes. Lists  Mathmo Talk 01:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. I agree with wknight; this really is just too much trivia; listcruft. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - This is extremely trivial information and I dont think an encyclopedia should get in the business of accumulating starting day rosters for every team.  I also see very little notability for starting day rosters in a sport like baseball. Corpx 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is useful not just for navigational purposes, but for research on teams over time. I disagree with Fabrictramp's comment about moving to individual season articles.  Keeping it here makes it easy to see who played for multiple seasons, who moved around in the batting order, etc.  It is not listcruft.  Including the lineup for every game of the season would be, but opening day has a special cachet, and even its own article! Matchups 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trade deadline has an article too. Does that mean we should have an article showing a snapshot of each team's entire roster at the trade deadline of each season?  Again, it's just one individual day without special significance - specifically without any special significance in relation to the team's roster.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the topic is truly that important (I don't feel that it is), there is a website that displays exactly the same information in exactly the same format: . The information is trivial as is, but if anybody wants to see this information, then just go to Baseball-reference.  I mean if you compare B-R with this article, you'll see that the similarities are more than too similar.  Also, please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING.  Just because it exists and there is a website about it doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia.  Ksy92003  (talk)  17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Baseball Reference article doesn't provide the navigational functionality of the WP page. And just because there is another website about it where somebody can get the information doesn't mean we're justified in deleting it here.
 * The trade deadline argument is cute, but a straw man. As noted in the Opening Day article, it is a particular honor to be the starting pitcher on that day.  Other days of the season, somebody might get a day off because they're tired.  Check attendance figures for opening day versus any other day of the season, whether the trading deadline or not.  I'll bet that will confirm the importance that fans place on that game. Matchups 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll let Wknight94 respond to the point about opening day, but I do have something to say about that. We can agree that more people go to games on opening day than trade deadline day, but that's immaterial.  Wknight brings a good point.  From a baseball standpoint, the game played on opening day is no more important than the game played on July 31 (trade deadline day) or any random day, such as August 18.  All these games count as either 1 win or 1 loss; there is no extra significance from opening day to any other day.  The second game of the season is just as significant, or the starting pitcher for the first game of each three-game series a team plays during a season.  It's not notable because there isn't anything extra gained; opening day is no more significant than any other day.  The only thing significant about opening day, if anything, is the fact that after that day a team is either 0-1 or 1-0.  I mean it's one game... there are 162 games in a season, and just one of those 162 games has any added significance.  Ksy92003  (talk)  18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's symbolic significance and enhances the reputation of the starting pitcher to be selected as the Opening Day starter. Often there is media attention about who the opening day starters are going to be. They are introduced on the field before the game on opening day, they are not introduced on any other day of the season. Spanneraol 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange... they announce the starting rosters at Angel Stadium before every game. I don't know about other ballparks, but at Angel Stadium the starting lineups are announced every single game for both the Angels and thei ropponents, and I'm pretty sure that this is constant throughout the league at every single ballpark.  Ksy92003  (talk)  18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you ever actualy been to an opening day game? Yes they announce the lineups on the scoreboard.. but on opening day they players are all on the field and they run out to the baselines to take the applause with much pomp and circumstances. Spanneraol 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why yes, I have been to many opening day games. But now, Spanner, you're giving the argument that just because players are cheered for or booed at that makes them notable.  The reason why they announce the entire rosters is because it's the first game of the season and some people are injured, in the minor leagues; it's to inform the fans whose on the team.  They announce the starting roster the same way they announce all the other players.  They say who's batting first, second, etc. and in what position like normal.  They come out on to the field because the rest of the entire team is out there, which again, the bench players and coaches are only announced on the field so the fans know who's on the team and who's in the minor leagues or on the DL.  Ksy92003  (talk)  18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly saying that you see no difference between opening day and day 138? Or is it just cause you say on your user page that you hate the Dodgers that you are pushing this so hard? Spanneraol 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not get paranoid. I'm also saying there's no difference - alright, the starting pitcher takes extra significance so it is 1/9th more important.  But that's it and it still doesn't warrant a whole separate article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Opening Day already has a whole separate article. I'd say there is special media attention in the home markets on opening day which gives it significance. Spanneraol 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My dislike of the Dodgers has nothing to do with this. I would hold the same opinion no matter which team it is, even if it were the Angels.  I'm not going to let my dislike of a single team to damage the encyclopedia.  I don't feel that nominating this article for an AfD damages the encyclopedia at all. There is a difference in the games #1 and #138 in the sense that after #1, a team could be 1-0 and after #138, a team could be 82-56.  That's the only significant difference I see.
 * And reviving Wknight94's point: trade deadline has its own article, so is it important to list the team's roster on trade deadline day? Ksy92003  (talk)  19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Matchups already responded to the trade deadline remark.. It's not at all the same. Most teams dont change their rosters on trade deadline.. thats just silly...  Opening day is a special day on the baseball calendar.. i don't see how you can follow the sport and not know that. Spanneraol 19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a special day, that's why it has its own article. But the exact lineup of every single team on opening day has no significance whatsoever.  What's next?  List of Opening Day umpires at Shea Stadium?  Who cares?  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And trade deadline isn't a special day on the baseball calendar? Ksy92003  (talk)  19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the same thing... now you are just being silly... Do you ever hear anyone say "oh i have to go to the park on trade deadline day?" Come on! Spanneraol 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you have to go to a game for it for it to be an important day. Ksy92003  (talk)  19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But do you find yourself saying, "gee I wonder who the Opening Day left fielder was?" I don't.  Maybe you'd like to know who the intended starting left fielder was at the beginning of the season but that's not what this article is showing.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I went to opening day for the Angels. I can't even remember who started the game at third base for the Angels that day.  It's too trivial and unimportant, as far as I see.  I could care less because their current star third baseman, Chone Figgins, was on the disabled list at the start of the season.  So do I care who started in his place?  No.  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you certainly could be saying "I wonder who the opening day starting pitcher was" or "who were the starting pitchers on opening day for team x" the past 10 years? Spanneraol 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But this also applies to starting pitchers. Obvious #1 starters miss Opening Day every year.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It still has historical value. Just cause the two of you don't care doesn't mean that other people wouldn't care about it. Spanneraol 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:INTERESTING. You can't use as an argument that you think it's interesting, and you can't speak for other people, either.  You can't say "Just because you two don't care about it doens't mean other people won't."  Let them speak for themselves.  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been other people in this thread who have said they thought it was usefull. I can use any arguments I want.. If you are allowed to say you don't find it interesting, then I am allowed to say I do. Otherwise it is pointless.. Those WP argument guidelines were written for the express purpose of making it hard to argue anything. Spanneraol 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I thought it was uninteresting... I don't think that it's interesting, but I never used that as an argument. I said it wasn't notable, and a collection of indiscriminate information.  Ksy92003  (talk)  20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's ease up all. Spanneraol is right that everyone's made their opinions known and the closing admin has what s/he needs to make a call.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Question I wonder if there is a consensus for the inclusion of lists of players for a given pro-sports team in a given year? If so, it would be trivial to include the information as to starting lineups, and changes through the season. FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks, let's not get so hung up above that you miss this. This is a very good suggestion.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have several problems with this list...
 * The fact that it only includes seasons from 1958 is somewhat of an arbitrary condition. Sure the team moved, but they still had Opening Day in Brooklyn. So why separate lists (in theory)?
 * There's no reason why this information can't be included in the articles for the Dodgers' indivdual seasons (such as 2006 Los Angeles Dodgers season).
 * As stated above, this strays waaaay too far into WP:NOT territory.
 * While not wholly related to this AfD, the same user added succession boxes to the player pages for each member of each of the Opening Day rosters. (For an example, see Steve Sax.) "Succession box bloat" has been an issue of contention at WP:WPBB in the past; this is one of the worst examples of the phenomenon yet. Caknuck 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was told to do the lineups as a list instead of as succession boxes.. apparently I'm not allowed to do that either? I haven't been able to get the information earlier than 58... The team does not have articles for all there seasons, only 2006 & 2007... Creating whole articles about each season is simply a lot of work.. and someone else on here did point out that its handy to have the information in this format to track changes between seasons. Spanneraol 20:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, creating pages about each season would be a lot of work, but it'd be work that'd probably be more acceptable to folks. FrozenPurpleCube 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course if the info is moved to all the season pages, you would have to go to over thirty different pages to get info that is now available on one page. Spanneraol 14:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but doing it that way will maintain the same information, whilst not not putting all the information on an article which currently violates WP:N, WP:CP, WP:LC, and WP:NOT. Ksy92003  (talk)  18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, I disagree. Making it harder to find information aparently is your goalSpanneraol 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what this AfD is to debate. You don't think it violates any of those four guidelines, while I do.  That's why we have AfD debates, so we can determine that.  If you want to think that my goal is to make the information harder to find, then you're gravely mistaken.  On the contrary, I've said numerous times that this information is already easy to find and formatted in an incredibly similar way, something you continue to deny, at Baseball-Reference's page.  Ksy92003  (talk)  18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'll note that I was the contributor who recommended listifying rather than using succession boxes; as for copvio issues, the info can obviously be found in numerous newspapers following each Opening Day game, so it's not subject to copyright. I would have no objections to including the data in articles for individual seasons, though (as noted) these generally haven't been created. As for notability, I'll note that Major League Baseball recognizes official records for most Opening Day games as a starting pitcher, so they obviously recognize that game as being of particular importance. (I concede that there's a noteworthy difference between being selected as the starting pitcher, which changes from day to day, and being the starting right fielder.) But the list does help to indicate what the team intended to be its principal lineup during the year. MisfitToys 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions.  -- Caknuck 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No one has explained why this is encyclopedic and not listcruft. Why is this one day more important then the first game after the all star break?  Or the first game in August?  Vegaswikian 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Opening day has always been regarded as significantly more important than the average game. That's why the President always takes time out of his schedule to throw the first pitch, for example (going back all the way to Taft). The appeal is primarily emotional, rooted in tradition, but since baseball is a sport that's very invested in its traditions it's a pretty big deal. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the current president, Bush, has a connection to the Texas Rangers, so that could have something to do with that tradition in the league today. No doubt that the opening day game is significant amongst baseball enthusiasts, such as myself.  But although the day is notable, that doesn't necessarily make the specific game any more notable, and consequently that doesn't make the list of players who played on that day a notable list.  I mean there are plenty of aspects of opening day that are more significant than other days.  Just to name a few: attendance, ticket prices, parking price, beer prices, the pre-game flyover.  Why not something like "List of beer prices on opening day" or "List of pilots who flew over Wrigley Field on opening day?"  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just a Bush thing. If anything, it's the opposite; Bush was roundly criticized in the press for bypassing the opening day tradition this year, making him only the second president to miss one (the first was Nixon during Watergate). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay so Opening Day is a ceremonial big deal - that's why it has its own article. None of this explains why the actual lineup on opening day is any more significant than on any other day.  Other than a team will usually use it's #1 pitcher on opening day, there is no other special significance to the lineup on opening day over any other day.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In comparison, the games a team plays when they have the chance to clinch a playoff spot are much more important that opening day. But it wouldn't make sense to have a list of a team's starters when they have the chance to do this, assuming they were like the Yankees and clinch a playoff spot every year, would it?  I mean opening day is just one game that isn't even the most significant game a team plays during the regular 162-game season.  Ksy92003  (talk)  17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Opening day lineups are definitely more significant than any other game's lineups. As has been stated earlier, there is a significance to being a team's starting pitcher on opening day and the lineups are introduced much like they are at the All-Star game and the first game of League Division Series, League Championship Series and World Series serieses.  I think it's fascinating to see the progression of a team's opening day lineup through the years.  I'd also like to see information added to the article answering questions such as "Why did Mariano Duncan start in place of Steve Sax at 2B in 1985?".  I believe that info would improve the article.  I also believe that we should table the copyright violation discussions until this Afd is resolved.  It's cluttering up the flow of the article.  Copyvio was not listed as an original reason for deleting.  X96lee15 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I didn't notice the copyvio until after I nominated it, so I probably shouldn't have brought that into the discussion at the time I did. But first, let's determine the AfD, and then if the article is kept we can deal with the copyvio discussion.  But let's not remove it from the page because those discussions could become quite important later.  Ksy92003  (talk)  17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article can certainly be improved with extra information like X96 suggests and if it is kept I'll work on adding stuff like that... Spanneraol 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this page should be kept because it will be useful for a lot of people and will help them remember some players that they have forgotten.  LightningOffense 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sports fans can find an infinite number of ways to arrange information. We must not let them use Wikipedia for this purpose. The players should be forgotten, LightningOffense, if Wikipedia is their only hope of being remembered. 75.184.84.89 13:29, 16 August 2007 (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.