Talk:Noble outlaw

Set Index Article, not a disambiguation page.

This article is a Set Index Article (SIA), which is a List, not a disambiguation page. It needs a WikiProject class=List rating. Disambiguation pages have a similar structure and are easily confused, as I did previously. However, those are now automatically detected by the banner shell whereas SIA's are not. As a result I have changed my mind and reassessed this articles as a list. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe This is currently being argued about right now. This is quite confusing and I don't know what's going to result from the discussion, but we will see. This article especially doesn't seem to fit any of the requirements for an SIA (being about similar things with a similar name), it does fit under a disamb though. I don't know. This is all dumb, we're having to rate pages that have no content with importance assessments. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not a disambiguation as neither of the articles support the claim that these are known as "noble outlaw". older ≠ wiser 03:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." And it's clearly not an SIA either, as these are not identically named topics of a similar type. It is closer to a disambiguation than an SIA at the very least. Maybe it should just be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The entries fail several criteria for disambiguation, most notably MOS:DABNOENTRY: Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous (according to the linked article) with the title. And a bit further on in same section: Do not include entries for topics which are not mentioned in any article. older ≠ wiser 03:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not an SIA either, as it fails to be "about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". These are not of a specific type and they have different names. So should we just delete it then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

On the face of it, this purports to be a list of "noble outlaws" (whatever that might be). However, it is unreferenced and questionable whether that categorization has any notability. So, yes it probably should be AfDed. older ≠ wiser 04:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bkonrad and @PARAKANYAA: Looking at the article history, it started with a bit of vandalism, and evolved from there, rather than being speedily deleted. AfD seems a reasonable move. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: As I understand a disambiguation page, the title of the disambiguation page is the title of multiple possible articles, but those multiple articles with the same title have a disambiguator, so they are able to be distinguished from each other. That is not the case here, as neither person in the list has the same name - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA and @Bkonrad: This article appears to be the makings of a list, at present. Whether it remains as a SIA or becomes somthing else depends on what the concept of a noble outlaw is defined as. That definition is currently lacking. This article might have started life as a disambiguation page or even a redirect, but appears to be evolving into something else, over time. I would prefer to let it evolve, than saying what it is, or is not. Yes, I am confused too, but that happens sometimes when someone tries to fit a square peg into a round hole. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)