Talk:Overthorpe, West Yorkshire

Overthorpe, West Yorkshire is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This redirect falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge/redirect to Thornhill?

@Esemgee, @Crouch, Swale. An early OS map shows the settlement as "Upper Thorp". There's newspaper coverage of Overthorpe Park opening in 1949 but it does say "Overthorpe Park, Thornhill". There's also snippets on the council estate built on part of the Park. Doubtful there's a great deal to write about so the article may not progress from a stub. IMO content is best placed within Thornhill, West Yorkshire; nonetheless, it was of benefit to raise the issue. Not sure whether a formal merge proposal is required, but one may attract further input. Rupples (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a merge tag. In terms of notability it has coverage on the history of the name and its an OS settlement which may qualify it as legally recognized. I'm not sure if it qualifies for a separate article though. Yes a formal merge discussion is needed as a notability tag was removed in 2010 and its been redirected and restored twice so is clearly controversial. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Anyway, it's been on since 2006 so no need to rush to a decision! Rupples (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples I did the same research before I merged the article into Thornhill as I considered it to be completely non-controversial. After it was recreated and merged again I was surprised that it was once again recreated with no indication of notability. I have rewritten a sentence in the Thornhill article so as to re-use the reference as Thornhill could do with expanding. Redirect again, the reference is already merged. Esemgee (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time has come to once again redirect this article. Objections anyone? Esemgee (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on if the source I added establishes notability? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the source added does not make the place notable because if it did every place name could potentially have a separate article with a sentence explaining the name's meaning. That's not enough for notability, but it is relevant content. Rupples (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overthorpe could be notable if sources are found on it as a separate place from Thornhill. It's like any other place that's become subsumed into a another settlement. Notability can be established via the GNG for many suburbs or neighbourhoods, but one brief source is not enough and the source added IMO doesn't support presumed notability. Rupples (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet again redirected this article. A name on a map does not constitute notability. Esemgee (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]