Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Pontus


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Pontus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a non existent body, written totally in POV, without serious (let alone reliable) sources. Distortion of history. Even "flag" imposed on a "proposed" state (?) which was supposed to be called "Republic of Pontus", by the concerned WP editor who made up the article. E4024 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As seen at, the Republic of Pontus was at least a serious proposal for a state that might have been formed due to the territorial changes at the end of World War I. Any problems with the article can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book by Forster does mention the Republic of Pontus, but I can't access the entire thing from Google Books. A cursory search turns up at least a dozen books that could be used as future references in the article, including works by the American-Hellenic Society, the US War Department, and The Times of London. There's also an article from The New York Times which states "The Greeks of Trebizond asked the Peace Conference to detach Trebizond from Turkey and to form of it a separate State to be known as the Republic of Pontus". The topic is notable and any problems can be solved via normal editing, as Metropolitan90 said. For examples of articles on other non-existent bodies, see List of proposed state mergers and List of United States territories that failed to become states. Braincricket (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification The above referred writer mentions a "desire" to have a republic not a state or a project thereof... --E4024 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Metropolitan90. Topic is notable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although this article involves inaccurate information, we can find reliable sources even in Turkish language. See: (Pontus Cumhuriyeti). I think this case is a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Easily a notable topic. This is just a major case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Athenean (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, there are good reasons behind this request that are not just that E doesn't like it. Can anyone find a link source to support this claim: "the Republic of Pontus was never officially proclaimed, but a central government of an embryonic state existed."  All I can find is people calling it a "political aspiration" or that there were "plans to declare a Pontus Republic", or "The Greek Republic of Pontus never became a reality, and in the abortive struggle to create it the Pontic Greeks were displaced with enormous loss of life"  or, "How and why the Republic of Pontus did not materialize".  I'm leaning toward Keep, but proposer is right: 1. Topic has not been the subject of serious, reputable study (there are no English scholarly histories on the topic, just brief mentions on other subjects) 2. And the brief mentions which do exist, seem to make clear that it was a political aspiration and never anywhere close to an "Unrecognized state" or even "embryonic state."  I will vote to Keep if someone can show me: A. A major reputable treatment of the subject (without this, there is no notability for a historical entity) or B. Someone shows something that says this wasn't just an idea by a handful of people with good diplomatic connections, but an actually existing entity. Otherwise, the content should probably be merged with Paris Peace Conference page or Trabzon page Pontic Greeks.  AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? There is plenty of material on the subject . Yeah, so it was never implemented, only proposed.  That has nothing to do with whether the subject is notable or not.  By the way, who is it you are following around?  Me, or E4024? If it's me I would prefer it it if you stopped. Athenean (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When I open a discussion I always hope many people to follow me and join the talk, not only two or three users. So thanks to everyone who are kind enough to join the discussion. --E4024 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Athenean. Thanks for the comments. No sources in that search, except the Eccumenical one, spend more than a line or two on the Pontic Republic.  All of them use the term once, if at all (seriously click on the books and you will only find trivial mentions).  Notability is clear that Notability has to be more than trivial mentions, although not necessarily the full subject of the article.  We need a couple of sources that spend a page or two on the Republic of Pontus to clearly say it is notable.  United States of Latin Africa which has a few scholarly treatments (although not the article) may be a good example of an imaginary state that is notable.  But even if there isn't that scholarly treatment, I said I would be convinced of its notability if it ever was an "Unrecognized state" or even "Embryonic State".  If it had an office, I'd probably lean towards Keep. So there are two ways you can convince me: show me a significant treatment of it in a reputable source (I will not be convinced by Google Book hits for trivial mentions) or show me it actually existed.  Either one will convince me the topic is notable.  I think both are quite reasonable and following guidelines too.  Once again, I'm leaning toward Keep, but don't think dismissing the arguments by E is helpful in figuring this out.  AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found one. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. But perhaps the article should be renamed to reflect the idea that no republic was formally proclaimed or recognized. Sprutt (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Great, finally found a substantive source on it.  Had to really look for it.  Will be doing my part to improve content on the page. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sprutt: As you will most possibly agree with me, if a state has not been formally proclaimed any supposed recognition is out of question; therefore maybe you should strike that word in your comment. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2012 (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.