Deletion of Riograndense Republic

Comment: Bigdaddy, please |assume good faith, the discussion has taken a much better turn of recent, and we are trying to find an acceptable solution to the problem at hand, and I don't think going down that line of questioning is going to produce anything positive. You have agreed that removing the bit about the modern separatists is acceptable to you, and this is the main bone of contention. To merge the articles was clearly not in order to solve any "ideological motivations" since surely the removal or the aforementioned material would take care of that. I floated the idea as a possible solution, and fair enough it may not be ideal. The article can exist on its own as a stub, but I believe that the separatist part should be transferred to a standalone article on the issue on Brazil, should we find sufficent sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: Can we get back on topic here? The issue is |verifiability - 1. the sources used to establish existence aren't reliable 2. The possible secessionist movement in southern Brazil don't belong in this form of article - they should be instead in an article entitled as "Secessionist movement in Southern Brazil" (or something with a better title, conforming to style guidelines etc.), which would then be properly sourced.  Given there are no reliable sources, this article is basically . This deletion debate isn't about how valid the secessionists' views are, or whether the movement is naziism - it comes down to |policy, and this article should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:POLICY)

Comment: Your source seems |reliable, and establishes the existence of the republic, and for some verification. Coupled with the earlier book search, it is clearly a notable event in Brazilian history. This is not the place for ideological discussions, and deletion arguaments should only be based upon |policy and |guidelines - I would hope all contributors to this discussion would take a look at the source given by Bigdaddy above, as it looks the real deal. Another useful link: Wikipedia:Deletion policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:POLICY||WP:G)

Comment: No independent reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. There are too many unsourced claims which hints at a lack of notability of this topic--possibly a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)