Deletion of Catalan Republic (2017) (3rd nomination)

Comment: We jumped the gun on this one, so when a state did not in fact emerge we were left with a |redundant content fork of Catalan declaration of independence.  The case to redirect is to prevent |link rot from other places on the web; unlike some deletion candidates this one is likely to have had some profile and hence some incoming links
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:REDUNDANTFORK||WP:EXTERNALROT)

Comment: There was never a republic in reality nor even in pretence.  The regional president made an ambiguous declaration but he never pretended that he created a new state, even if he had had authority to do so.  He went so far as to declare his declaration suspended at once, and then accepted that it was a nullity when the Spanish Supreme Court decreed that.  There was no state that took control even for a moment, and even its own government did not claim it did. The 'Catalan Republic' is pure fiction or aspiration. The article contains nothing which is not covered by the article on Puidgemont's declaration: it seems to have been written just to propagate a fiction. |Wikipedia is not a propaganda soapbox
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: per .  Spliting a substantive discussion which has been long under way seems like a bad idea; if and when the merge discussion is closed, no prejudice against starting a deletion discussion.  Just not now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:FORUMSHOP)

Comment: and let the discussion on talkpage to decide its fate. Actually I have to agree with Jayron32 above. There's already discussion ongoing about it. Above all per content issue, this article is well sourced, nobody is doubting its |verifiability and Wp:N|notability (to important reasons for deletion). And some delete vote here are rather unconvincing. Because the fact it doesn't become reality have nothing whatsoever to its ''notability'', Wikipedia documents what receives "significant coverage" not what becomes reality. Also for "content fork" argument, deletion policy favor merging or redirecting in such issue (if it's truly fork) see -REASON. There's no substantive argument of why it's fork except overlapping sources. And for this, we should let the talkpage discussion to decide whether merge or redirect since it was started long before this AfD. In addition it is worth mention this article exists in 43 language versions apart from this one
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:DEL)

Comment: Parsing out this event in history from the original source is not warranted. Had this event in history changed the government, it would have been reflected in that government's page. I agree with the above editor above citing that there never was an actual government established. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: The article claims to be about a free and sovereign state independent of Spain but really it is just a |content fork of the articles Sandstein mentioned. Had there been |worthwhile coverage of actions outside declaring independence or major powers actually recognized the existence of the "Catalan Republic", then there would be more use to this article other than repeating exactly what is conveyed already elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK||WP:SIGCOV)