Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan Republic (2017) (3rd nomination)

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 ~~merge~~ redirect to Catalan declaration of independence. There's reasonably good consensus here that this is a content fork of Catalan declaration of independence and should be merged back into that article. I don't think anybody is arguing that the topic shouldn't be discussed; the only question is whether a single article covers things adequately; most people feel that it does.

There is also a parallel discussion at Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)#Merge . I have not read that in detail, but my quick analysis makes it clear that the talk page discussion was also coming down firmly in favor of the merge.

I don't see any consensus on how much or which material to merge, so that will be something that's left to whoever executes the merge. Whatever happens on that front, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: based on a conversation on my talk page, I'm amending my close. I'm going to implement the redirect now. The history is intact, so anybody can still mine the existing article text for material to merge into Catalan declaration of independence if they see fit. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Republic (2017)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous two nominations were speedily closed because the article was then on the main page, so this is the first substantial deletion nomination.

This is a content fork of Catalan declaration of independence - that is, it needlessly duplicates content better covered there and in related articles such as Catalan independence referendum, 2017, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis and Catalonia. There's no need to repeat the same, relatively limited facts concerning the recent political shenanigans in Catalonia in multiple (possibly contradictory) articles.

There is no content in this article that does not relate to the act of declaring independence. There's no coverage about the institutions, functioning, politics, etc., of this self-declared state - presumably because there's nothing to say: independence was declared, and then the whole thing was quashed by Spain. This is opposed to e.g. 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence and Kosovo, where an actual state with actual institutions and control of its territory emerged from the declaration. Here, there's basically nothing to report except the declaration, which we have already covered. Sandstein 08:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. 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. Kahastok talk 09:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 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.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Already we have so many source in the article. And I think, this article is similar to People's Republic of Korea (this is also short-lived government). Thanks. --Garam (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't address the content fork problem. The sources are not the issue, the fact that they are the same as in several existing articles is. People's Republic of Korea does not have that problem. Sandstein 21:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Garam: Catalan republic is not a short lived state. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, Panam2014: People's Republic of Korea is also proposed country (not real contry) in Korea, like Catalan Republic. And already there are so many article about "proposed countries" in English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The majority at Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)#Merge seems to favor merging/redirecting the article to Catalan declaration of independence. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. As per Kahastok redundant content fork of Catalan declaration of independence. This should be a totally non-controversial clean up. I suggest editors who consider voting "keep" to give this some thought and fully read discussions on talk page before doing so. No need to block what should be a fast consensus.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the declaration as a valid, reasonable search term. The content here is highly duplicative of the content there, with nearly nothing unique.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No form of effective government - not even during the 24 hours following the declaration, no international recognition, all parties agreeing to concur on new elections organized by Spain... Article on the declaration is the way to go.Baidelan (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No form of government, no international recognition are all not convincing reasons for deleting this article since it satisfy WP:V and WP:N. see Category:Proposed countries –Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep - As the merge discussion appears to be nearing its end, I have to say this is a rather poor time to open a deletion discussion. As for the policy implications of this article in relation to others, the nominator is absolutely correct that this cannot be compared to Kosovo. However, where they are wrong is the assertion that an article like this does not have its place on Wikipedia as a standalone self-proclaimed state article; just see Catalan State (1934) for a situation that near perfectly mirrors this. The overwhelming majority if not the entirety of the emphasis takes place on two things: 1) the declaration being passed 2) the aftermath/consequences in which Spain reasserts its control. This is a longstanding standard, and while I agree that all consensus based standards can be undone by new consensuses, for our self-proclaimed state articles to not be questioned until a self-proclaimed state is proposed in our lifetimes generating controversy does seem to lack adequate consistency as this article not only covers the same aspects as every other Catalan state article we have to offer but does that with greater detail and a higher quality rating. Just out of consistency I do not see any convincing arguments for deletion as the assertion of it being nothing more than a content fork has not been demonstrated thus far in any of these discussions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm afraid, having read your argument twice, it seems to be a rather convoluted way of saying WP:OSE (yes, perhaps Catalan State (1934) requires a name change and redirect, that is not relevant here). It does not address the fact that the material is effectively duplicated and that there never was at any moment of 2017 a Catalan State, which can be objectively sourced. Even the infobox is WP:OR, with its supposed national anthem, flag and seal, let alone proposed dates on when it may have theoretically started or ceased to exist. Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical oppose per WP:FORUMSHOP. 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. --Jayron 32 14:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jayron. If there's a consensus on the article talk page to merge, then this discussion is redundant. If the merge discussion is closed as no merge or no consensus, a new AfD can be opened at that point. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am (or was not) aware of any merger discussion. if the decision here is to delete, the merger discussion is in any case superseded. But I'm fine with a redirect, which leaves the merge discussion open and still able to determine what if anything needs merging. Sandstein 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were, than your reading skills are suspect to the point of WP:CIR-level bad. The merge discussion template was in the article since November 21. You literally had to add your AFD template to an article that clearly already had a merge discussion template. I'm sorry, but "I wasn't aware" is a piss-poor excuse for someone who has been here as long as you have. That's either gross incompetance or willful ignorance, and neither is particularly reassuring here. Please don't do that. --Jayron 32 16:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like my reading skills are bad, then. Though I didn't much more than glance at the article before script-nominating it, because the issues with it are the same as at the time of my previous nomination, when I assume the merger was not yet an issue. In any case, a merger discussion is independent and separate from the deletion process; and deletion (which I believe is warranted here) is not prevented by an ongoing merger discussion. Sandstein 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we have two discussions which are essentially asking the same thing "What do we do with this article here" and the likely outcome of both is the same. It's always a bad idea to hold two discussions with the same function in two different places. This discussion is likely to result in functionally the same thing as the other one. It's just bad form to do that, because people who have pertinent things to say in one place would say the same exact thing in the other. It's messy to decide what to do when one has to keep reading two discussions to keep up. When the merge discussion is closed with the result of "merge", this discussion becomes pointless, unless you really just want to delete the redirect too... --Jayron 32 13:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BrendonTheWizard and oppose per Jayron32. Davey2116 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious POV/content fork. One could argue that content should be merged, hence it can also be made a redirect to allow content merging. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Catalan declaration of independence as an unneeded content fork. The two articles are essentially about the same thing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrendonTheWizard. Numerous failed attempts at creating a state have their own pages on Wikipedia if they are noteworthy enough. The fact that part of the article is a fork does not justify deleting it completely, as more information can be added or redacted in the future to solve such a problem. Applodion (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we already have an article about this attempt at creating a state. It's called Catalan declaration of independence. We don't need two articles about the same thing. Sandstein 13:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 03:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article begins "was a proposed". Well, yes, an independent Catalan republic has been proposed many times. This particular instance is not notable apart from the referendum. There was no Catalan Republic on 2017, just a proposal on a ballot that failed to take off. Srnec (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The declaration itself was not enacted or even proclaimed, as admitted by Puidgemont et al.; therefore there was no republic at all, de jure or de facto. Neodop (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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. Hogweard (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. WP:SOAP -Ventric (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Delete We already have a merge discussion going, what's the point in a delete discussion? But if there is going to be a delete discussion it's already pretty clear that this page is both original research (in that no source actually said that this state existed beyond the declaration of independence) and redundant (in that the page covering the declaration of independence already covers the declaration). FOARP (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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 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 WP:DEL-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–Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2017 (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.