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 redirect to Sindhi people. MBisanz ^talk 07:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

article is a POV fork from Sindhi people which has been protected after an edit war over POV material Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sindhi people. Also, I think you should resolve your differences with Skatergal via discussion or mediation rather than at AfD.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at her talk page, and at the edit history, you will see that I have made numerous attempts to start a discussion, all of which have been refused. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation, then?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use if she won't open her mouth, apart from edit summaries. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration, then?

Her article on the Sindhi appeared highly well-informed to me -- or at least, it did. (I notice the article's disappeared in what would appear to be a very early AfD closure, except that the debate's still running.) It was undoubtedly a PoV fork on the Sindhi People article, but then the Sindhi People article appears to have NPoV issues of its own, and I feel some kind of merger of the two would result in a more complete, neutral, and accurate article.

I also think it would be better if the person who blanked the article under discussion would please un-blank it until the AfD has run its course.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely well-informed. I also agree with you that a compromise is needed on the Sindhi People article, even though the current protected version is mainly my work. That said, we're dealing with someone who will not accept that her version might not be perfect, and warns non-Sindhis to stay away from it. I'm pretty sure that any arbitration will result in her being blocked, which I don't want. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (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.