Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baid


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Baid

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm bringing this to AfD for the following reason: Yesterday this was an unsourced stub that made no sense. I PRODed it and another editor deprodded it and added back in a lot of material from an earlier version that substantially increased its length and provided refs. My concern is that in previous months there have been a number of articles at AfD about Indian castes, which if I recall correctly were all deleted as the sources were regarded as unreliable. This article looks like another one in a long run of similar articles using the same sources. Perhaps editors who have taken part in previous AfD discussions in the field or have expert knowledge could indicate whether this should be kept or not. Mccapra (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly Redirect to Paddy field - of the five sources currently listed, citations 1 and 2 come from the British Raj era and are known to be unreliable, 4 and 5 relate to an alternative meaning concerning paddy fields, and 3 (see here) doesn't seem to mention them on the cited page nor via the GBooks in-text search. Even if they do appear somewhere in citation 3, I strongly suspect from our own text that it would be a passing mention. We have been going round in circles on this article for years now. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Just struck out my !vote above as there is a possible third option. If we remove the opening, unsourced statement that it is a gotra (roughly, a clan) and adjust the categories accordingly then the article may be valid as a description of medical practitioners but somewhat WP:DICDEF. - Sitush (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GOOGLEHITS says, "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet" - in the case of Baid, the group is so obscure that I could find no references to Baid as a caste, only to baid as agricultural highland - there is a caste called Baidya, but they are in a different area - therefore, does not meet WP:GNG and therefore, Delete - while it seems sad that a group of people should be consigned to obscurity simply because no one has written about them, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:IINFO - perhaps someone needs to create a List of Hindu castes so that there is a place for groups like this - it feels like some kind of informational genocide to eradicate a group of people - Epinoia (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.