Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (second 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. Consensus seems to be that this list is too trivial. Proponents for keeping this information do argue that this information can be found in reliable sources and may be useful for comparison purposes; however, the counterargument of mentioning any germane changes in the season article(s) seems to be more appropriate in light of avoiding indiscriminate information, since there will be more context in those articles, and, as was pointed out, not all roster changes are noteworthy. — TKD::Talk 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The previous AfD for this list was closed as "no consensus"; DRV overturned this closure, but the consensus was too narrow to delete the article outright from DRV. The article is thus relisted. Delete, as an unencyclopedic list. Xoloz 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete its an non-encyclopedic list. If people really want to, the starting lineup for each season should go in each seasons article.    Sasha Callahan   14:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The opening day starting lineups are notable.. as they are featured prominently here and here  and are also referenced in the team media guide, which can be viewed here .  Having them on one page allows interested readers to easily see how the lineups evolved over several years, something that is harder to get from going to individual season entries. This meets the criteria for WP:LISTS as it provides both notable information on a single, well-defined topic, and navigational tools. Spanneraol 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Same reason as before. Game #1 is no more important than game #48 (and in fact is less important than game #162 in a lot of cases) except for the possible exception of the starting pitcher.  Folks at every other position are just the best players coming out of spring training, just as the starters for game #48 are the best players coming out of game #47.  Throw in platoon systems and the starter for game #1 may not even be considered the best at his position at the time!  Yes, Opening Day has a special significance in general - that's why it has its own article - but to list the starting lineup for every team for every season is far too crufty.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just as I had reasoned in the first AfD, this is a violation of WP:NOT and is information better suited to some sports almanac or Dodgers fansite.  ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft. Having played in a particular game is not a notability standard.  Where is List of Los Angeles Dodgers Third Game of the Season Starting Lineups?  Corvus cornix 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article on Third game of the MLB season? No. Do we have an article on Opening Day? Yes. ugen64 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. We have an article on Opening Day because it's a ceremonial big deal with the President showing up, etc.  The game itself gets lost in the production.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the first AFD.  A starter on the opening day could just as easily be traded the next day or called down to the minors.   This is no different than a lineup for any other day of the year  Corpx 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true for any article about any specific game. ugen64 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence why we have so few articles on specific games in the system. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Round 2: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOT, WP:N, just to name a few. I still fail to see "no consensus" from either the first AfD or the Deletion Review.  Delete per the same reasons I gave in the first AfD.  Ksy92003  (talk)  16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is enough WP:RS material out there to write an article on the topic. Every year, reliable sources make a big deal out of the opening day starting lineup. There is commentary, analysis, comparisons to the prior year and prior years, comparison to other teams opening day starting lineup, comparison to what the reliable sources predicted themselves, etc. For whatever reason, the reliable sources seem to think that opening day starting lineup somehow predicts how the team will do during the year and can be used as a way to get into the team management thinking. During the season, they look back to see whether opening day starting lineup had the projected impact. The list entries themselves can be sourced and the plenty of way in which the prose for the article can be developed. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources is the same from every line-up of every team especially if there is a key injury, etc. Jaranda wat's sup 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above could be an argument to have a separate article on just about every roster move for every team for every season. And a few articles on roster moves that don't get made.--Fabrictramp 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, mostly I agree with Jreferee's point. Maybe you don't think opening day lineups matter but it's not your opinion that matters, it's whether the article's subject is considered notable and verifiable by reliable sources. The information is of course verifiable, and for whatever reason it is considered notable as well by many sources (if Opening Day itself is considered notable, then surely "who plays on Opening Day" is notable as well). To give an analogy - we don't have an article on the UEFA Cup semi-final because the UEFA Cup semifinal is not considered notable. Therefore, if someone created an article on UEFA Cup semi-final lineups then I would vote for deletion. However, we do have an article on the UEFA Cup finals because those are notable, and in addition each year has its own article. Now obviously, this (creating an article for each year) is unnecessary for Opening Day because the result of the game itself has little significance, but the lineups do and therefore an article about those is fine. ugen64 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article Opening Day is about the general concept of Opening Day. If we had an article about each Opening Day game by each team, those would be a good place to put the lineups per your argument.  But we don't and likely never will.  The actual particular Opening Day game by each team is simply not that important except as the ceremonial opening of the season.  The President shows up, there's a little extra pomp and circumstance, etc.  The lineup and even the outcome of the actual game get forgotten in it all.  If anything, you could make a case to say that the actual game #1 is the least important and notable each season.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, opening day is something throughout the entire league. It's not something that only the Dodgers celebrate.  And in fact, there is only one opening day, and on that day there is almost always just one game.  This year it was the Mets and Cardinals.  Every team has a first game, but only two teams play on the league's opening day.  Ksy92003  (talk)  18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * wknight, if it is the case that the lineups get "forgotten", then why do the teams themselves keep lists of all their opening day starting lineups in the team media guides? Obviously the teams consider them to be worth remembering and worth a notice. Spanneraol 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So just because somebody thinks it's important, that gives it instant notability? I think my kitchen sink is important, but is my kitchen sink instantly notable because of that?  For every single thing out there, at least one person thinks it's important, so to say that "well, they think it's important.  So should we" as a reason for having an article isn't valid.  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, by that method.. just cause YOU think it isn't important doesn't mean it isn't worth having an article on it.. which seems to be your main argument. I've indentified a number of sources that show it as being important.. but obviously the opinion of major league baseball doesn't matter compared to your feelings that it is unimportant. Spanneraol 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Importance and notability are two entirely different things. Importance is how necessary something is.  Notability is how noteworthy something is.  I never said the list wasn't important.  I said it's not notable enough and doesn't mean a whole lot.  Keep your facts straight.  Ksy92003  (talk)  19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments in the last AFD and the DRV, also while it isn't a copyvio as simple stats, the formatting is and we are ripping off baseball-reference info, and that's very bad, we are not them, and of course we don't want that website to go out of service, we are already doing it for the seasons articles and that's enough. Jaranda wat's sup 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons I gave last time. Definitely meets the definitions of WP:LISTCRUFT. If the information for a particular opening day is important, it can be in an article on that season. If the table is important, all that's needed is a link to baseball-reference. --Fabrictramp 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per DRV - viz: listcruft. Eusebeus 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as being so narrow a topic as to be utterly trivial. VanTucky  (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT - Lists of indiscriminate information. Also, far too trivial per VanTucky  Giggy  Talk 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- trivial listcruft that's just plain ridiculous; how exactly is a starting lineup for an opening day notable enough to have its own article? The topic is to narrow. -- Boricua  e  ddie  23:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is clearly trivia and an indiscriminate list, violating the spirit of WP:NOT (though I don't think WP:NOT is usually a useful policy to quote in deletion discussions, as it's rather vague and hard to apply to specific articles). I admit I don't know a great deal about baseball, but the reasoning of the Keep !voters above seems flawed. Evidently both the Los Angeles Dodgers and the concept of Opening Day are notable; no one is disputing that. But notability is not inherited, and even where a topic is notable, we don't include all trivial information about that topic. This list of lineups may be important to baseball fans, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia with fixed standards of notability, which this list does not meet. WaltonOne 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my thoughts in the first AfD:
 * "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."
 * X96lee15 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The opening day roster is no more notable or significant than those of the next 161 games that come after it. This is the epitome of trivia, and the WP:ILIKEITs are not enough to keep this around. Tarc 01:41, 23 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.