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 no consensus. That is, no consensus to delete, but I think there is consensus to proceed as proposed by RebeccaGreen, that is, to transform this article into an article about all the uncertain ancient Larissas. Sandstein 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa (Thrace) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There is no evidence for a Larissa in Thrace. The cited reference is about Larissa (Elis), which has an article; I tried redirecting it but someone else thought it ought to exist and so lets see if anyone can find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. The Hansen reference can be found at https://books.google.com/books?id=h7kRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA499 where the Laris(s)a on page 499 is squarely in the chapter entitled Elis, not Thrace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’ve found this, this and this(apparently). I’m not sure how much weight can be given to these sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also found the first two sources cited by Mccapra, and some others. It is clear that some people interpret the ancient texts to say that there was a Larissa in Thrace, and others argue that there is no need to interpret them that way, and that references to Larissa must be to Larissa (Elis). There is no mention of that dispute in the Larissa (Elis) article, and given that it seems to have been around for centuries (the sources cited here date from the early 19th century), it would probably be useful to include it in Wikipedia (though I haven't checked for more recent sources to see whether there's modern research that definitely establishes it one way or the other). But it would probably be better to include the dispute in the article on Larissa (Elis), especially as both are supposedly located between between Elis and Dyme (Achaea). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that sounds a good way of handling this. Mccapra (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was no Larissa in Thrace. Hansen and Nielsen (Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis) list a Larissa in Elis, and four Larisa in Thessaly, Achaia Phthiotis, Troas, and Aiolis, but none in Thrace. The books mentioned by Mccapra refer to a mention of Larissa in Homer. Those dating from the first half of the 19th century have little scientific value. The third source mentions Larissa and Thrace in an enumeration, eg. "Larissa, then Thrace", not "Larissa in Thrace". The Larissa of the Iliad could be that in Troas. See discussion there and there. There is not enough ground to create an article on this city, and the discussion related to the Homeric Larissa should be included in the articles on the Larissa in Troas and Thessaly. T8612 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @T8612: Very interesting comments. It there a significant level of confusion about this topic from earlier historical books, that it would still be worth having this article to clarify that it probably did not exist, and that earlier historians were wrong. Or, is it so unambiguous that such an article would be unmerited? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance:I edited the disambiguation page on Larissa and mentioned the Larissa in Thrace there. Normally, it should also be discussed in the article on the Larissa in Troad. I think there is no need for an article on the Larissa in Thrace. T8612 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and T8612 (T8612, just clarified your vote). Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename and revise To clarify my comment above - the point about the books from the early 19th century is that they show a longstanding argument about whether there was a Larissa in Thrace or not. In fact, the second source that T8612 provided (and which was first published in 1886-1888) shows that there has been debate since the time of Strabo! That source suggests either Larisa (Troad) or "Larissa near Kyme in Aiolis"", presumably (?) Larissa Phrikonis in Aeolis. The 2003 book which User talk:T8612 also linked to has only a snippet view on Google books, but that snippet suggests that there is still confusion - or conjecture - about which Larissa is intended. This source mentions Larissa in Thessaly, which the others don't, so we have at least 3 possibilities of known places called Larissa, and the discussion about whether there was also one in Thrace. On that basis, I am coming to the conclusion that it would be best to have a separate article summarising the mentions in the ancient texts and the hypotheses about which place is intended (with a name something like Larissa (Iliad). We certainly can't have a sentence in the disambiguation page with no qualification and no sourcing - it is clearly controversial. (Pinging Mccapra, who first contributed to this discussion.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is you won't find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. At the very least, the title should be changed to something like Larissa (Homeric city), as it could well be a city not in Thrace. I have just found that G. S. Kirk in his commentary on the Iliad (vol. I, p. 257) says that Strabo "was probably wrong", and favours the Larisa in Troad:

"LARISA was a place-name particularly associated with the Pelasgoi, ancient inhabitants of Greece (cf. "Apyos, the homeland of Akhilleus, at 681, also Apollodorus 11.4.4). Strabo (9.440) mentions no less than eleven Larisas; one was north of the later Hamaxitos on the west coast of the Troad (Strabo 13.620; Cook, Troad 219-21), which would suit the proximity of this contingent to the preceding ones from in and around the Troad - although when Hippothoos dies before Troy at 17.301 it is said to be 'far from Larisa'. That caused Strabo to opt for the Larisa near Kume, further south, but he was probably wrong. The Pelasgoi are stationed near the Leleges at 10.429, and the Leleges lived in Pedasos in the Troad according to 21.86f." T8612 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant - we should have a separate article about the Homeric city, and I think we may as well keep this one, rename it and revise it. I suppose that's not a straight Keep, so I have added Rename and Revise to my vote. Whether it is Larissa (Iliad) or Larissa (Homeric city), it would make clear that it is a city named in a ca 2,500 year old text. The article's content would need to be rewritten to focus on the uncertainty of its identification, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen That was before I found the work of GS Kirk, who is a very reputable source and shows that the confusion originates in Strabo, and that he was mistaken on this point. I don't think that creating an article on a city with no source supporting its existence is worth it. I'm also not sure it would fit the notability requirement. I added GS Kirk to the article on Larisa in Troad, which is already quite developed. T8612 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename and revise per RebeccaGreen. If the modern scholarly consensus is that there was no such place, but there are suggestions in older sources that there was, then I think that provides the basis of an article discussing the matter. That is exactly the kind of thing someone would be likely to look up on Wikipedia. I don’t feel strongly about what the name should be, but T8612ks suggestion of Larissa (Homeric city) looks good. Mccapra (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Note to Closer. Interesting direction this discussion is going, and I do not have the subject detail experience to re-write this article. However, the article as stands in its current form (both title and text) is a Delete. All agree there was no place of this title. I would support the calls for "Keep, rename and revise" per the material already given in this AfD by T8612 and RebeccaGreen, but given it is a new title, new text etc. (e.g. a brand new WP article), it would need to replace this one. Otherwise it is better to delete this one now and come back to the subject later. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename and revise. I think RebeccaGreen has made the case for this conclusively. Whether we now believe there was a Larissa in Thrace or not isn’t this issue; as a matter of encyclopaedic principle we should record the fact that there is a long and contentious debate on the point. Thanks to her for teasing this out so clearly. Mccapra (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Apologies I've struck my !vote as I just realised I accidentally voted on this twice. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2019 (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.