Deletion of List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day Starting Lineups (second nomination)

Comment: There is enough  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: The opening day starting lineups are notable.. as they are featured prominently here http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/opening.shtml and here http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/dodgers.shtml and are also referenced in the team media guide, which can be viewed here http://pressbox.mlb.com/pressbox/downloads/y2007/la/history_records.pdf.  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  as it provides both notable information on a single, well-defined topic, and navigational tools
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: 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 s are not enough to keep this around
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: as being so narrow a topic as to be utterly |trivial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIV)

Comment: for the same reasons I gave last time. Definitely meets the definitions of . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: Round 2: , #INFO, , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:NOT||WP:N)

Comment: Just as I had reasoned in the first AfD, this is a violation of  and is information better suited to some sports almanac or Dodgers fansite
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT)