Deletion of February 7 in baseball

Comment: asper nom and also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: . I can live with generic date articles, but having date articles by subject is just a can of worms. Sourcing? Weight? NPOV? ? Multiplying essentially pointless non-encyclopedic articles is just an invitation to look silly. If we're happy with February 7 in baseball, why not February 7 in Angels on the Head of a Pin Debate? There must be baseball websites for this sort of thing.  Everything We Can Think Of That Can Theoretically Be Sourced (But Actually Isn't And Probably Never Will Be
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT)

Comment: I'm aware this is an argument to avoid, per , but I really do feel that these lists aren't doing any harm to the encyclopaedia. In fact, if we had the time and resources, I'd support doing a February 7 in insert here . As SilkTork mentions, if we can't have this, why do we have February 7 at all? If someone has the time to create these sorts of lists, I'm behind that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOHARM)

Comment: List of events for each day of the year are considered encyclopedic enough for the main page, and baseball has its own portal (Portal:Baseball), which I think is a decent enough criteria for inclusion of such lists of events (and to avoid a slippery slope feared by some people here). We happen to have an editor willing to do the work here, trees are safe since Wikipedia is |not made of paper, as for the main objection, I don't consider arranging events chronologically (modulo one year) a form of cross categorization. Reading various comments above, I also have to point out here that pages such as February 7 are mere lists of events, only select entries such as January 1 are the subject of an actual article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)