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)[reply]

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers[edit]

List of Chicago White Sox Opening Day starting pitchers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So what???? copied from below: "to me this list appears to be breaking the Wikipedia:NOT#STATS#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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:NOT#STATS#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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • any sources to back it up with? The better the better. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Not a Speedy Keep, just a Keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
First of all, you're the one who brought up WP:NOT#STATS 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an invalid deletion rationale. Default to Keep. Vodello (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (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.
More