Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baltimore Orioles 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 delete. There is a slight consensus to delete here, but this is especially so because the rationales for keeping are slight and/or not related to policy (i.e. "these lineups are listed in many different places. If they weren't notable than they wouldn't be recorded" which is assuming that anything that is reported anywhere can be notable - not the case, obviously). Other Keep merely rely on "it's sourced" and WP:NOHARM. I was surprised that WP:NOTSTATS wasn't referenced further in the discussion, however. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting lineups[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No lasting notability on a general purpose encyclopedia, belongs in a baseball specific wiki or almanac. Not sourced either. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reason, only one sourced is the Mariners one, there is no consistency in their layout. BTW, obviously, if they're deleted, that would leave their category empty so it would need to be deleted too, but I don't know if I can bundle it in to here. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 08:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator is incorrect that these pages aren't sourced as they are all sourced to baseball reference. Nominator is also incorrect that their is no lasting notability as these lineups are listed in many different places. If they weren't notable than they wouldn't be recorded. They are also fairly consistent in their layout, despite his claim with only minor differences. Being in the opening day lineup is something that is worth mentioning in a list like this.Spanneraol (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanner, please provide links to multiple, independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of each opening day line-up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other point to consider regarding the notability of these lists: mentions of players in sports statistics websites like Baseball-Reference.com are generally considered trivial and are disregarded for determining notability. Please see WP:NSPORTS#Basic criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search [1] turns up several sources that refer to opening day lineups and that the discussion about who makes the opening day lineup has lots of coverage. This is a list not an article, so if the subject of the opening day lineup is notable, and I believe it is, then that is enough to make these lists viable. Spanneraol (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they have notability, but, as I noted in my nom rationale, not enough to belong on a general purpose encyclopedia. See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability of this compounded type topic. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis added) postdlf (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, Post, but how do you reconcile the generalized statement that "Wikipedia incorporates elements of . . . specialized . . . almanacs" (among many other things) with the more specific "Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK?" In my world, that's exactly what the typical sports almanac is—a book of statistics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This list is not statistics. It may be improper to include for other reasons, but the fact that it's the kind of info you'd find in a sports almanac isn't a valid deletion rationale. Most WP:NOT problems are instead cured by removing the unencyclopedic information from an otherwise valid article (i.e., sales prices in an article about a store) or adding more information to make it an article (adding biographical info to an article about a pitcher that only listed his career stats). Anyway, my main point is that your statement is inaccurate and not helpful here to resolve the issue, as are most attempts to present a slogan as an argument. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for explaining your rationale. Personally, I think there is a rather large difference between my original statement ("Wikipedia is not a sports almanac") and the excerpt from the Five Pillars you have chosen to emphasize ("Wikipedia incorporates elements of . . . specialized . . . almanacs"). I'm missing the part where it says Wikipedia is a sports almanac or any other form of specialized almanac, as opposed to incorporating elements from same. As for sloganeering, I think you will find my logical deletion rationale based on the (non)notability of the lists' subjects outlined below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, the question needed to be pushed deeper, to ask why or why not this particular element of a sports almanac should be included here. I think I agree with your use of WP:LISTN here (though no opinion as of yet on your application of it), because I don't think any other part of WP:LISTPURP applies. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Spanneraol about the notability. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I think they satisfy the notability for stand-alone lists. Opening day lineups are always an important subject of discussion and news in baseball, even from a random season I picked out like 1948 where there are few scans and yet still plenty of coverage, and Spannerol's simple google search does a ton more to show the importance of opening day lineups today and throughout history. There's also countless amount of coverage in The Sporting News, which I wish was still a free service to see their 100+ years of scans. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vodello, the specific subject is "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting lineups," not "opening day lineups," as you searched. WP:NLIST requires that the specific list subject satisfy WP:GNG, which requires multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a material, non-trivial manner to demonstrate the notability of the list subject. Quote: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines[.]" Please provide links to multiple, independent, reliable sources that specifically discuss opening day lineups of the Baltimore Orioles. Those sources should also by substantive, i.e. not trivial or routine mentions. Otherwise, we are simply dancing around the real notability requirements and trying to satisfy them with blue smoke and mirrors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isnt just about the Orioles as other teams are nominated here also... The point is that the opening day lineup is notable so lists of the different teams lineups are allowed under list policy. Spanneraol (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, Spanner, it's not just about the Orioles list, but we have to start somewhere, and so far no one has provided links to multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups" (or any of the other teams named) in a non-trivial way. Please provide specific links to independent, reliable sources that discuss the specific subject; a Google search for 1948 starting lineups demonstrates nothing but key word hits, none of which are specific to the Orioles (MLB Orioles franchise did not exist in 1948), and the overwhelming majority of which are either trivial or routine regarding the other teams. Please note that the notability of "Opening Day lineups" is a different subject from the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups," or the lineups of any other teams. The subject of this list/article is not "Opening Day lineups"; the subjects of these lists are the Opening Day lineups of specific, identified teams. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I dont think you understand me... If opening day lineups are notable then lists of them is notable.. the Orioles dont need any specific criteria. Notability requirements for lists are different than the requirements for articles. If we went by your really stringent requirements we would have no lists on wikipedia. The point of those google searches was to prove that opening day lineups and who is on them is a subject that has been reported on continuously.. Thus lists of people who meet that criteria, grouped by team, is certainly acceptable despite your misreading of the guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Spanner, please give me a little credit. I understand your position; it's not that complicated. I suggest that you re-read WP:NLIST and the applicable provisions of WP:GNG. The specific subject of the list must be notable as a group, and in this case, that means the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups"; it does not mean that because "Opening Day lineups" are a notable subject that lists of the Opening Day lineups of individual teams are notable. Quote: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." I thinks that's pretty darn clear. You may also want to do a key word search for "list" in GNG; there's more than one applicable subsection. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The difference is in what you define the "group" to be and I see the group as being the opening day lineups in general and these lists are under that grouped topic. And opening day lineups have been discussed "as a group" in many sources as we showed earlier. Spanneraol (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I assume nobody would object if a given year's opening lineups were in the team's season article. The question would be if it makes sense for navigational purposes to have all those single-year lineups in a single standalone list.—Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Bagumba, the notability guidelines do no apply to individual elements of an article, so incorporating the current starting lineups into a given team's current season article (or main team article) is not an issue. As you probably know, the NFL, college football and college basketball team and season articles typically incorporate a current team roster. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how this is different than FLs like List of Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting pitchers. Is a starting lineup for a club that much different?—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My personal understanding is that being the opening day starting pitcher is a more prestigious honor as there's only one of you but there's 9 people on starting lineup. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, first, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, if we are arguing about the notability of an article subject, then we need to focus on the applicable notability guidelines (here, WP:NLIST and WP:GNG). The question posited is: are there multiple, independent, reliable sources that specifically discuss the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineupS?" Yes, or No? It's a relatively simple question that requires the supporters to provide actual sources. It's not a matter what else exists on Wikipedia, or whether we like the list/article or not. It all boils down to one fundamental question. If multiple, independent, reliable sources exist, of a non-trivial nature, that discuss "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineupS," I will be happy to withdraw my objections and change my !vote to "keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the starting pitchers lists, which are FLs, to make sure we are not overlooking a precedent here. It could be that they are not notable either. It could also be that these are notable and we should consider WP:IGNOREing the notability guidelines, as there are no firm rules in WP aside from following consensus. I dont think it easily meets the notability guidelines, but I could see how it would be helpful to have a list like this anyways. Sources always talk about teams' opening day lineups, even if they only talk about a few seasons at a time, or even further limit it to a specific position.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, the trick is not finding sources that discuss every opening day lineup for a particular team, which you probably won't find outside of some team-specific sports almanac. The trick is to find multiple sources that discuss the opening day line-ups of the particular teams, the importance/significance of the opening day lineups, and actually discuss them in a non-trivial way. I'm betting that several of these lists can be supported as notable (undoubtedly, the Yankees list), but no one who is taking part in this discussion has yet made any serious effort to do so. Simply repeating that a subject is "notable" over and over again, as others (not you) have done, does not make them so. I'm also a little perplexed when some editors take AfD discussions so personally. Last time I checked, I was a member in good standing of several sports WikiProjects, including WP:Baseball, and I'm not some evil sports article deletionist. But I don't think Wikipedia in general benefits when we bend over backwards to keep articles that don't satisfy the notability guidelines and aren't properly sourced. Wikipedia already has plenty of non-notable lists that aren't properly sourced, and we don't need more of them. If an article or list satisfies the guidelines for inclusion, it's usually not that hard to demonstrate that it does. The burden is on those who support inclusion of a particular subject, and to the extent good sources exist for the particular teams under discussion in this AfD, those articles/lists would benefit from the inclusion of those additional sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, for now - I'm kind of torn; on one hand, I think the topic itself is reasonably notable and the article itself is probably useful, I do have concerns as far as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'll monitor the AfD and probably !vote one way or the other eventually. Weak delete - If I was a wizard at editing Wikipedia, I'd have come up with what Wizardman said...he pretty much took the thoughts out of my head and mushed them into a coherent thought. Go Phightins! 02:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I draw the line at opening day pitcher. That is a prestigious assignment/honour due to both the fact that it is a single position and the fact that a pitcher doesn't start every (or the majority) of games like the rest of the players do. There is independent notability for opening day pitcher, but not for opening day lineup. When speaking of lineup the opening day lineup is essentially the same as the starting lineup (sans the pitcher) and thus is no ore notable than the latter. Ravendrop 03:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's a tough situation, but the opening day lineup doesn't have the significance that a starting pitcher would have. That does get talked about in sources in and of itself, unlike lineups. Wizardman 03:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ravendrop put it well; there is little independent prestige to an opening day lineup that is any different from being an everyday player. This is a rather indiscriminate list and while it has some value, it would be better for a sports website or almanac. Against the current (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not notable compared to being an Opening Day starting pitcher. This type of info is more appropriate for BR than WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sourced information and you never know who needs this type of info. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If we seem to agree that lists of Opening Day starting pitchers are useful, then what's the damage in having *more* information on the same page(s) (or what could be the same pages, if the starting-pitcher and starting-lineup pages are merged)? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a combination of a WP:OTHERSTUFF and a WP:NOHARM argument. Against the current (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bbny-wiki-editor's argument should not be automatically dismissed based on those essays. WP:Other stuff exists says that though "other stuff" arguments are "not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Also, WP:NOHARM is a stronger argument when verifiability is an issue, but these articles can be sourced with some effort.—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although not as notable as the Opening Day starting pitcher, opening day lineups do get coverage each year discussing issues such as new acquisitions in the lineup or out do to injury, rookies who made the opening day lineup, players who had been in the opening day lineup in the past who no longer are, etc. Taking one of the teams bundled in this discussion, Here is a New York Times article discussing changes in the Yankees 1989 Opening Day lineup from previous years; here is an article about how the Yankees 1951 Opening Day lineup replaced 3 veterans from prior years' Opening Day lineups with rookies, here is an article about Joe DiMaggio being out of the Opening Day lineup for the 4th time and one about him being out of the Opening Day lineup for the 7th time and another about DiMaggio being replaced in the Opening Day lineup. Here is a Times article that discusses briefly the Yankees' changes in Opening Day shortstop for 6 straight years through 1996 and a New York Post story on a change in the team's Opening Day lineup from 2010 to 2011. Here is an article that while not discussing the 1923 Opening Day lineup in detail or comparing with other Opening Day lineups reports that lineup of being worth of commemoration 85 years later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs) 13 December 2012‎ (UTC)
- Rlendog, I will readily concede that there is probably more than enough coverage to satisfy the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG guidelines for the Yankees opening day lineups, largely owing to the Yankees presence in the New York media market. It ain't there for the other teams, however, and the current sourcing of the other articles based on Baseball-Reference.com is considered trivial and disregarded for purposes of determining notability per WP:NSPORTS (See WP:NSPORTS/Basic criteria.). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know about the Orioles, Mariners or Rockies specifically, and don't have time to look at each team individually. But I am pretty sure the Dodgers, with half their 100+ year history in LA and the other haif in NY, and one of the most famous Opening Day lineup changes of all time in 1947, have more than enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe so, Rlendog. This is not my AfD, and, instinctively, I would not have nominated a cluster of articles about the Yankees and these other teams in a single AfD. Perhaps we should split this AfD into separate discussions for each list; otherwise, it's going to become a very confusing discussion as each list is addressed on its specific merits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - CRRaysHead90, as the nominator, would you consider withdrawing this AfD, and renominating these lists individually? There are elements of an excellent discussion above, and I believe that I could quickly summarize those points in a single bullet-point post following your individual re-nominations. I would also suggest that the Yankees list probably has more than enough substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines of GNG, whereas most of the other lists do not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would suggest a discussion at WP:BASEBALL. OTHERSTUFF and WP:IGNORE really should be addressed as far as the existence of related opening day pitchers FLs, but it will be difficult to get due consideration of the broader topic in an AfD forum.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There has been at least one AfD discussion of the starting pitcher lists here, but much of the discussion centered around the fact that being the Opening Day starting pitcher is a particular honor, which makes the case for those lists stronger than for everyday players. Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The opening day pitcher AfD referred to had a consensus to keep mostly because it was considered inherently notable, though it generally did not got to the level of demonstrating significant coverage. The delete arguments in this current AfD are being more stringent. There are annually many article written for every team on the current year's projected opening lineup. Is that enough for notability, or do sources need to discuss multiple years at a time for notability? Do starting pitchers have the more stringent coverage or are they inherently (i.e. subjectively) notable? WP:IGNORE says its fine to decide that a topic is inherently notable, sources be damned, if the consensus is that it improves WP. If that is the general reason for having the starting pitchers lists, it could also be a valid reason to keep the general lineup list.—Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Bagumba, I have been a proponent of holding XfD discussions on WikiProject talk pages when the subject of the XfD is within the particular expertise of the WikiProject (e.g., proposed merges of navboxes, proposed merges of related articles, etc.). With regard to notability issues, AfD is the best and most proper forum and it attracts non-baseball editors who have a wider grasp of the notability guidelines. A more proper issue for WP:Baseball would be whether we should include the individual opening day lineups (e.g., the 1960 Los Angeles Dodgers opening day lineup) in the individual team season articles (e.g., the 1960 Los Angeles Dodgers season). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.. the Dodgers season pages DO include the opening day lineups... but many of the other teams seasons do not. Spanneraol (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be a wise guy, Spanner, but that may be the most appropriate place for this opening day lineup information, and it's not subject to any discussion about its notability as part of an article whose subject is already presumed to be notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the argument for both starting pitchers and lineups is WP:IGNORE. Starting pitchers will probably never be overturned in an AfD by non-domain (or even baseball) experts that might believe GNG is met by an article bombarded with a multitude of sources that point to trivial facts about a team's opening day pitchers that have never been discussed in a general article about opening day pitchers. Maybe we should add a sourced breakdown on lefties vs righties in historical starting lineups as well as a breakdown of players in the HOF vs those who are not and those who are not eligible yet (all common "facts" in a lot of baseball FLs). —Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, I empathize with your frustration over the apparent inconsistency, but this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia written by volunteers. Inconsistencies are inevitable, especially when every XfD discussion is effectively an ad hoc committee composed of whatever editors wander by. The solution is not to ignore the notability guidelines in a current XfD because a previous XfD did. That just makes the problem worse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list is sourced and satisfies my requirements for notability. Opposers points seem strained and unconvincing. Jus da fax 20:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the logic of "opposers" is hardly "strained," as you suggest. The burden is on those editors voting to "keep" to demonstrate the notability of each of the lists nominated in this AfD by providing links to multiple, independent, reliable sources for each list per WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:RS. In absence of multiple, independent, reliable sources for each of the lists nominated, those voting to "keep" have failed to satisfy that burden and those lists lacking such sources should be deleted by the closing administrator. That's the way it works. If you and other "keepers" fail to provide such sources, the closing admin may disregard your !vote as unsupported. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your opinion.. if the consensus of the participants in this winds up deciding that the articles are notable then they can be kept, regardless of what you are asking for.. and I remain convinced that the articles are notable based on my reasoning above.. I understand you have a different opinion but that doesnt mean you are automatically right. Spanneraol (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. "Notability" is one of the core principals of Wikipedia, and the primary determinant of what gets included. If you believe that notability is determined by a simple majority vote, I suggest that you re-read WP:CONSENSUS, which is actual Wikipedia policy. And, for the record, WP:WL is an essay, not policy. If actually arguing notability based on policy is "wikilawyering," as you suggest, then we should just do away with AfD altogether and let editors include whatever articles they choose to create . . . at which point Wikipedia will be no different than BleacherReport.com. Somehow I don't think that's what this all about. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Common sense seems to me to be the operative principle here. To quote: "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Are we building a free encyclopedia with reasonably sourced information that readers can use, or are we stuck quibbling? I would argue opposers have lost perspective on our project and that, to be blunt, the deletion argument you cite seems to me to be a simple case of WP:WL, and I call on the closing admin to take this view into serious contemplation. Jus da fax 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" does not trump policy, especially in the absence of a very good reason for an exception supported by a solid consensus. Otherwise, AfD simply becomes an exercise in IDONTLIKEIT and ILIKEIT. Moreover, one man's "common sense" is often another man's simple disregard of policy and inability to present a logical argument based on policy. And, for the record, the "common sense" section cited by you above is a part of an essay, not Wikipedia policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at the links provided above regarding the Yankee opening lineups, and I feel they all fall under the category of routine sports coverage, as they basically say "X is in the opening lineup" (and sometimes "in the place of Y") or "Z is not in the opening lineup". (The one about the commemoration of the 1923 team was really not about the opening lineup, which was not even listed.) By its nature of beginning the season, naturally there is more sports writing about the opening day lineup. However similar articles have been written comparing other points in a season, such as a team's home opener lineup, or the lineup in the first game after the All-Star break.
I think for this topic area to be notable as a set, there should be some significant, independent, non-promotional, reliable coverage from notable sources discussing the topic of opening lineups itself (and not just the list of players who are or aren't in them). I believe the topic of becoming the regular starter for a team at a given position may have significant coverage. Although becoming a team's starter has a high correlation with the opening day lineup, it is not a perfect one, and I think a list of the regular starters for a team would have more sources to draw upon to establish notability. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with regular starters is that it is somewhat ambiguous, e.g., there can be a platoon, or an injury replacement that plays a lot of games. While the Opening Day starting lineup is a verifiable fact. As for routine coverage, those stories (other than the reference to the 1923 lineup, which is a different issue) all reference changes in the Opening Day lineup from one (or more) season to another. There are not many articles about changes in a team's 80th game lineup, or even final game lineup, from one season to another. And I specifically looked for articles about changes across seasons, because that was the suggestion of what needed documentation. There are many more articles specifically about the opening day lineup each season itself. Rlendog (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the majority of cases, there are one or two players at a position who start most of a team's games (whether or not it is due to injury replacement doesn't affect the player's status as a regular starter). Sabermetricians have set definitions for purposes of study that can be used. I appreciate that this is less definitive than who started in game 1, but I think a list of regular starters is more notable from the perspective of the overall season: there is ongoing coverage of a team's starters throughout the whole season. Also, I think articles that discuss changes in opening day lineups are using this as a proxy for discussing changes to the team regulars. isaacl (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (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.