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, defaulting to keep. John254 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over-riding the non-adminstrator close of this debate. With respect, and without casting any aspersions on the good work that User:John254 does. To summarise:

The keep suggestions were of the nature of

• "has potential"
• "Why don't we delete A and an, then?"
• "this is not a dictionary entry, it is an encyclopedia article"
• ""'The' is one of the most importants words in the English language"

Long consensus has established that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that articles that fail to discuss characteristics such as controversy regarding its use, its rise popular culture (not just Return of the Killer Tomatoes), ot their ilk are dictionary entries. This is a dictionary entry as established by previous consensus on articles of this nature.

The result is redirect to Article (grammar).

brenneman 06:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The[edit]

The (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The definition of the should be here, on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. The same has been done in Germany. Somebody 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this has potential as an article and this does not just give a dictionary definition. Simply south 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above: What potential would that be, exactly? What encyclopedia subject would go by this title? Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, by the way. You are making the mistake of thinking that this isn't a dictionary article because it isn't short. (And this despite the fact that the Wiktionary article is longer.) Uncle G 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is nothing more than a dicdef, and would expect to find an entry for "the" in no source other than a dictionary. The expanded etymology that forms the basis for this "article" does not make this encyclopedic. If tacking on an etymology makes something encyclopedic, we may as well merge wikipedia and the wiktionary. Agent 86 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why don't we delete A and an, then? It has potential as an article. bibliomaniac15 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above: What potential would that be, exactly? Uncle G 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is nothing more than a dictionary definition. The fact that A and an exists is not a good argument for keeping the. Let's delete both! Lesnail 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, if it's decided that dictionary entries are now encyclopedic, why not merge or redirect both into Article (grammar)? Agent 86 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, this is not a dictionary entry, it is an encyclopedia article. If we can write a good encyclopedia article about a word then it warrants inclusion. Bryan Derksen 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is exactly a dictionary article, except with the sections in a different order. The first section contains usage notes, with example sentences. The second section contains etymology (and some discussion of the development of definite articles in general that belongs in, and can already be found in, definite article). And the third section contains pronunciations. All of those are canonical dictionary article content, and standard parts of a full dictionary article. Uncle G 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very good for encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Etymology section which is rather informative and encyclopedic. meshach 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any useful info should be merged into Wiktionary and the article deleted from Wikipedia as per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It might be appropriate to move some of the etymology into the article, Article (grammar). Adambro 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "The" is one of the most importants words in the English language. We use the word in the course of our everyday lives. Without the word "the" this sentence would read "is one of most important words in English language. We use word in course of our everyday lives. Without word this sentence would read..." --Candy-Panda 13:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The importance of the word 'the' is not under question. The question is whether there should be an article which is effectively a dictionary definition on Wikipedia when the Wiktionary exists for that purpose. Adambro 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Constantly repeating that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary doesn't actually make this into a dictionary definition. It contains an etymology section and a section about dialects, as well as links. These things would only appear in a dictionary if the dictionary is stretching its entries to include more than just definitions. It's manifestly *not* a dictionary definition. Ken Arromdee 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you've looked at a dictionary lately, but they certainly do include etymologies and usage notes. --UsaSatsui 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case the dictionary is stretching its entries to include more than just definitions.
    • A dictionary definition is a definition that appears in a dictionary. A dictionary definition is not "*anything* which appears in a dictionary". If a dictionary includes encyclopediac material about something, that doesn't mean the encyclopediac material is a dictionary definition. Ken Arromdee 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy is not "Wikipedia is not dictionary definitions", but "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", which as you can see includes usage guides. If the content doesn't go beyond what's in a dictionary, then it falls under there. What material do you feel is encyclopedic? There's an etymology that's more of a history of defnite articles than of the word "the", which looks like it's encyclopedic by mistake, but that can be merged. --UsaSatsui 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whilst Ken Arromdee seems unhappy that other editors keep referring to the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, I would suggest that as UsaSatsui has noted, this is very important as it states the differences between encyclopaedia and dictionary articles. It also states "A full dictionary article... will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed". My point being that the question is whether it should be a dictionary definition or an article on Wikipedia according to these criteria. We are referring specifically to Wikipedia and Wiktionary, not what any other dictionaries may or may not contain. We are not simply making the statement that 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary', we are referring to what that policy tells us should be on Wikipedia and what should be on Wiktionary. Adambro 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I said it that way is that several people specifically mentioned dictionary definitions, which this isn't. But even ignoring that, it has no similar words with different articles, no inflections, nobody is suggesting foreign language versions, and it certainly isn't a proper noun. While it is an article about a word, even the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy gives an example of singular they. Featured articles include Macedonia (terminology), Yuan (surname), and Read my lips: no new taxes. Good articles include Hoi polloi, Truthiness, and Winston tastes good like a cigarette should. By people's reasoning here, we shouldn't have an article for Winston tastes good like a cigarette should unless it actually discusses whether Winston tastes good, and any article about the phrase itself should go to Wiktionary. That's absurd. Ken Arromdee 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Honestly, you'd think some people believe "We're sending it to Wiktionary" is the Wiki equivalent of "We're demoting you to toilet cleaner". Just because it's a definite article doesn't mean it has a definite article in Wikipedia (there's your pun for the day). Most of the content isn't really about the word itself, it's about definite articles, and the saveable info can be merged there. --UsaSatsui 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If someone can write some content into the article that's more than just what "the" means and where it came from, it would help the case greatly, rather than just arguing "It's not a dictionary article" and "it can be expanded into an encyclopedia article". If it can be done, be bold and do it. --UsaSatsui 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This contains nothing but dictionary information, albeit good, well-cited dictionary information. I agree with UsaSatsui - if this can indeed be expanded into something encyclopaedic, please do so, because some of us cannot quite imagine how. GassyGuy 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the status quo. This is a valuable article, and it should not be deleted. Why delete something that is useful and already exists?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.163.137 (talk) 16:58, 19 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.