Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number One With a Bullet

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. This is on Wiktionary already, so no need to transwiki again. --Core desat 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number One With a Bullet

Contested PROD. This article is on a phrase and simply explains the phrase's etymology and use. That seems more like a job for a dictionary, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's really not much to be said about the concept of being "number one with a bullet" as it's just a phrase with meaning as described on the page, for, as is also mentioned, the music charts (from which this phrase was derived) do not allow the possibility for actually being number one with a bullet. I don't see much hope for expansion of this beyond various examples of usage, which makes it no less a dictionary definition. Prod was removed on the grounds that the phrase was once very commonly used. I would argue that it's still not all that uncommon a phrase, but that there's nothing particularly encyclopaedic to be written about it. GassyGuy 02:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Delete It appears to be a good dictionary definition, however, one that may not belong here. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:N the lack of notablity is strongly supported by Special:Whatlinkshere/Number_One_With_a_Bullet Signed Jeepday 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, Wiktionary already has an entry for wikt:number one with a bullet at the proper capitalisation that could be expanded, but I'm not sure I'd recommend transwiki of this one, especially as there's also an entry for wikt:with a bullet. GassyGuy 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is dicdef at best and unsourced. Fundamental Dan 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the wikt entries cover it. TonyTheTiger 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if published references available for verification of etymology; delete transwiki otherwise The article appears to be more than a simple dictionary definition, as it goes into pretty good detail as to the specific origins of the phrase. (By contrast, a dictionary would merely explain what the phrase means, how it is pronounced, and at most a couple of words about the word origin). So my vote would be Keep... except the references for the story about the origin of the phrase appear to be a little dodgy at first glance. Therefore I will recommend Keep, but only if the references check out and/or are expanded to include a published source. I would also recommend that the article be expanded to include some notable examples of use of the phrase in pop culture, etc. Deletion only seems necessary if the information in the article can't be verified. Dugwiki 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there actually is an etymology at the wiktionary entry, as well as a mention in Wikipedia at bullet (disambiguation) about what a bullet means on music charts. GassyGuy 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I was saying that the dictionary contains a very short description of etymology ("from the practice of Billboard magazine of putting a bullet sign in front of some chart entries."). This article expands on that, going into greater detail. That increased level of detailed background information is one of the differences between a dictionary entry for a word and an encyclopedic article about the word. Dugwiki 16:44, 9 February 2007 (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.