Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Series 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 no consensus. Head-count leans to Keep, but a number of argument are not policy-based or convincing. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Series starting pitchers

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

There is nothing to suggest that being a starting pitcher in a World Series game is notable to the point that it merits its own Wikipedia list, making this a violation of WP:NOTDIR due to the loose association and non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can tell this list meets the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists, specifically the section on lists about people. The individuals on the list are clearly notable. The membership of the list can be established through reliable sources though this needs to be done. I don't believe WP:NOTDIR applies in this case, since there is a well-defined and reasonable definition for membership of the list. I don't see how is could be described as "loosely associated". Sparthorse (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think it's absurd to call a list of baseball pitchers grouped by their starting pitcher status in a baseball championship series a "loose association and non-encyclopedic cross-categorization." Baseball personnel x baseball fact x baseball fact... We're not listing baseball pitchers who owned three cars and had large shoes, which is what I would consider a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, because the three things have no relation to each other and don't represent any reasonable way of subdividing the topic. In practice, unfortunately, "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" is such an indeterminate and meaningless phrase that it just means "a list I don't like" and doesn't help further discussion at all.
Second, I don't know what it means for a fact (who was the starting pitcher in a World Series game) to be "notable" or "not notable," as that's a standard we use for article subjects. The World Series is notable, and all of the pitchers listed here are notable. Starting pitcher is even a notable concept. And presumably, there are multiple reliable sources that have reported the starting pitchers for every world series. It might be the case that no single source has ever published this list before, but I doubt it, and that's not necessarily conclusive anyway. So "not notable" isn't a helpful analysis here at all.
So let's try again and ask some meaningful questions. The basic question is, does it make sense to separately index the pitchers by their status as World Series starting pitchers? Or looked at another way, does it make sense in furtherance of the coverage of the World Series to group together those who were starting pitchers? I took a look at the first ten pitchers listed (discounting duplicate listings), and only five articles stated that they were starting pitchers in a World Series, which may or may not be meaningful. There might be a reason to only list the starting pitchers for game 1 of a World Series, there might be a reason to list all of them. Is it considered an honor, as with (apparently) Opening Day pitchers, or indicative of that pitcher being viewed as the best on the team? Or as a team has several starting pitchers on rotation, is it more a matter of which one happens to be best prepared at a given time? Is this really just an arbitrary and trivial sliver of the broader group of List of World Series pitchers (note the redlink), in which case deletion might be appropriate? postdlf (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a random list. This is not random criteria. Being the starting pitcher of an MLB World Series game is a notable feat. Having all of them listed on one page in chronological order is of historic interest. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Kingturtle (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of an extreemly notable subject, very well organized, sorted in an easy to find order. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The starting pitcher is one of the most important elements of baseball games. A last-minute change in the starting pitcher will invalidate most bets on the game. The Steve 09:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By far the worst rationale I have seen for article retention. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Thesteve's observation demonstrates that the identity of the starting pitcher is a significant element in how the game is likely to develop, and thus speaks to the notability of the topic under discussion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTATS here, there is nothing to be gained and nothing of value to offer the reader in a simple list of starting pitchers in the WS. It is a trivial bit of baseball facts & figures, nothing more. We're not a statistical repository for pro sports leagues. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Addressing the arguments made so far: This topic is more notable than Opening Day pitchers (I realize that borders on WP:WAX) because all the best pitchers available will start in at least one of the several WS games, while your team's best pitcher might not start on Opening Day for strategic reasons. It's also better than List of World Series pitchers, as this is a more elite group. User:Muboshgu's argument is essentially a value judgment; certainly it is a notable accomplishment to be the starting pitcher in a WS game, but is it notable enough? User:Tarc's assertion that this topic is indiscriminate and trivial is pretty harsh, and I disagree. This page could be more interesting if you made the list sortable and added text highlighting some records and patterns. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To go at this "Opening Day starting pitcher" argument, it is far more notable to start on Opening Day than a World Series game. For starters, only one pitcher per staff starts on Opening Day. Hence, it's expected that it's the team's ace who is making that start (just don't remind me about Carl Pavano in 2007.) However, starting in a World Series game simply means being a starter for the team that happens to make it to the World Series. It's far more random and not established by any particular skill, outside of making the starting rotation, that is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been the guest who has kept track of the pitchers in this World Series, and believe that this list is a good source of keeping track of the history of who actually started in one of these games. I wasn't the creator of this page on any other previous accounts, so there must have been issues about sources before this issue came up. After this World Series is over, I will look into sorting out the list into decades to make the page easier to navigate. A source of any kind would be another issue to address in this page as well, and I am open to that. Otherwise, there will still be updates after every game for innings pitched and decisions. --SportsFan23 (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, but your response falls under WP:ILIKEIT. If you can find some sort of notability for the topic, you can userfy the page and bring it back with a better presentation when it's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN without sources that refer to this grouping as a whole.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2011 (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.