Talk:Norwood Ridge

message: * I can't find any references to this anywhere (other than the inevitable web-spawned copies of this one). As the only link to it is from Crystal Palace I assume it is supposed to be The Claygate Ridge, i.e. a ridge of Claygate Beds which are named after Claygate, but I can't find any references to that either . Whatever, Crystal Palace is WELL inside the southern edge of the London Basin, at the most conservative definition. Is it really worth renaming or should it be consigned to the dustbin of geological history? Pterre (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clay Gate ridge? 

message: The correct name, or should I say verifiable name, for the ridge forming the southern edge of the London Basin is the Norwood Ridge. Therefore, I have added a proposal for deletion for this page.
I've created a page for the Norwood Ridge that takes much of the correct info from this page.This page was originally created as the Clay Gate Ridge, then redirected to Claygate Ridge. The geological map mentioned is not a source for the name but a source for the fact that Claygate Beds are present at locations along the Norwood Ridge. I've created a page for the Norwood Ridge which is the correct name -  Jamicu (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deletion 

message: A user created a page called Clay Gate Ridge, which gave a name to the ridge forming the southern edge of the London Basin. The page name was edited to Claygate Ridge which appears to be linked to a belief the original name was a misspelling of the use of Claygate Beds. Unfortunately whatever the spelling there is no means of verification. A search in google only brings up pages that used the wikipedia page as a source. The only name that is verifiable is Norwood Ridge - Jamicu (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claygate Ridge V Norwood Ridge 

message: * I've been able to find one source for the name Norwood Ridge, but others are needed. If not it is reasonable to argue that although the ridge may be called The Norwood Ridge, the name is not used enough to require it's own page - Jamicu (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. When I stumbled on this article as "Clay Gate Ridge" back in 2008 (while editing London Clay or somesuch) it was I presume someone's mis-remembering from school days, and obviously derived from the London Clay#Claygate Beds which occur here. Not being a 'deletionist', I attempted to improve matters by correcting the spelling to "Claygate Ridge", and so matters rested for three years or so. It has recently been moved to 'Norwood Ridge'. I can't say this improves matters much, since (as Jamicu says), there only seems to be a single reference to this on the web, which hardly rates as noteworthy. Looking at the brief track record of the article creator (:User:Alec - U.K.), on reflection perhaps the page ought to be quietly deleted? Pterre (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have managed hopefully to sweep up in the whole eminence most of the petty, very sub-parochial (often builder-named) subcomponents, "which are innumerable" (or almost!) but one can preserve all those articles if pretension rather than logical grouping is the spirit of the day (zeitgeist) and it probably is in London.  I've also managed to incorporate the interesting political, woodland and early, in-part gypsy history (helpfully mostly researched for Crystal Palace, London).  I'm thinking of adding a clip of the the best terrain map of it on the commons, wikilinking the sub-components some of which do meet WP:N even globally speaking, linking list of highest places in Greater London and possibly See also: Shooter's Hill arguably the only other developed neat ridge in Greater London.- Adam37 Talk 16:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Norwood Ridge important enough to have its own page