Talk:Duncorn Hill

Deletion oppose

Oppose: There are many reasons to keep this article; the first reason is that even if it was a hill fort that didn't exist, why would if be mentioned on WikiProject Somerset's articles for creation list? It used to be on the List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset which clarifies that it was an Bronze Age hillfort. The investigation in 1966 has been referenced and backed up by sources, the article may be a bit short but it has a lot of consice information on there. Why would Duncorn Hill need to be deleted? It does have a site on the hill. Jaguar (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly we can't use other Wikipedia pages to justify retaining this article. Secondly, the 1966 investigation is referenced, but the source clearly states that no evidence of a fort was found. If there wasn't a fort on this hill what is it notable for? Being thought to have had a fort prior to 1966? Simply being a hill? There's no reason to have an article that I can see. If you do oppose deletion however, you can remove the PROD template from the article, although if you do I shall likely nominate it for WP:AfD.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) Other Wikipedia pages may or may not be relevant, Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay that states, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides".  So when you say, "we can't use other Wikipedia pages", that is a misstatement.  (2)  As I have said in the deletion discussion, personal opinions about the importance of hillforts (the "hillfort non-notability guideline" or WP:HNNG) are not an existing guideline or essay.  In this case the story of the hillfort is more material for a topic for which enduring notability existed before 1966.  (3) WP:5 mentions "gazetteer".  A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory...used in conjunction with a map...It typically contains information concerning the geographical makeup of...physical features, such as mountains...Examples of information provided by gazetteers include...dimensions of physical features.  There is nothing that says we should treat hills differently than mountains, (although someone could try to make such an argument within policy and guidelines).  WP:Guide to deletion states, "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion."  Unscintillating (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: if only for the reason that this article dispels the myth that there was a hillfort at this site. Without this article that myth may continue to be propagated. Pahazzard (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is a proper entry in the encyclopedia just to record the hill, and one perhaps minor piece of reliable information that would not appear on a map.  I estimate that we have tens of thousands of geography articles with less than this article, and I believe that they are proper elements of the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunkerton Hill

See the map It's not clear that the ascent up the A367 from Dunkerton, termed "Dunkerton Hill" is regarded as being on Duncorn Hill. Following this logic the entirety of Odd Down would be located on Duncorn Hill, which is clearly not the case. Duncorn Hill appears to refer to that round mound entirely located north of the B3115, so I am removing this section unless suitable evidence of the extent of Duncorn Hill is provided.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We already have a source for them being alternate names in the lead. I have restored the content as readers of the AFD should have the opportunity to judge this material for themselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That source is entirely insufficient. We have Duncorn Hill, a "rounded hill" that was the site of a supposed hill fort, and Dunkerton Hill, a road traversing a gradient to the south of that. All references to Dunkerton Hill appear to refer to the road, and no source refers to the supposed hill fort site as Dunkerton Hill, only Duncorn Hill. We can't use one passing mention in a non-local 1907 London society report as a reliable source as it is contradiction to all other evidence. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• One might say that Duncorn Hill is the peak while Dunkerton Hill is a traverse. They are aspects of the same topographical feature and the names are much the same, being derived from the Celtic din — fort. The source which conflates them is the journal of a learned society and so seems adequate to verify what common sense already indicates. Splitting these into separate articles does not seem sensible. It might be nice if we had a more general name for the locality such as we have for the Mendips, say, but so it goes. Removing sourced content while we work on developing this topic seems disruptive. Please desist. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, they are different entities. You might equally add detail on Fox Hill, Rush Hill or Horsecombe Vale which are gradients to the north of the Duncorn Hill summit. This article is not entitled Hills, roads and gradients to the south of Bath. Adding content unrelated to the subject in an attempt to show the subject as notable is not helpful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)