Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncorn Hill

Duncorn Hill

Duncorn Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable hill. This was a supposed hill fort, but according to the source given in the article, an archaeological investigation in 1966 found that the apparent evidence of a fort was just natural rock formations. So without evidence of a fort fort, we're left with a hill that might be notable for once being thought of as being the site of a hill fort. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete When the article was written it said there was a Bronze or Iron Age hillfort, which would have been notable. I found the source for a survey in 1966 saying the features thought to be man made were natural & therefore the hill itself is non notable.— Rod ^talk 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Delete This is an interesting situation. Had there definitely been a hillfort on Duncorn Hill, it would most certainly be notable, however as Pastscape notes the scarps are natural and it seems that the identification of the site as a hillfort was based solely on the artificial appearance of the scarps. So what this boils down to is are the archaeological excavations enough to constitute notability. In this case I don't believe they do; archaeologists wouldn't consider the site of interest (except perhaps in contrast to previous notions about it being a hillfort) and this doesn't seem to have been picked up in other publications. Perhaps a line can be added to the Nailwell article, but it may not even be worth mentioning at all. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per its talk page the 1966 investigation of the hill site has lots of sources and the article itself has references to back the facts up. It may not be considered a Bronze Age/Iron Age hillfort now, but the hillfort does have its own notabilty for its own article. However, I do believe that this article was a mistake but surely this could be worth keeping. Jaguar (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Notable hill, being amongst other things, a source of fuller's earth. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you find any sources to establish the notability of that? I'm sure it's also a source of grass for example, but that doesn't automatically make it notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course - do you suppose I would just invent this information? See, for example, Geology of East Somerset and the Bristol coal-fields, The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, The Jurassic rocks of Britain, Handbook to Bath, etc. There is not the slightest case for deletion so please see the deletion process which explains the appropriate checks to be made before starting an AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I did make those checks, which is why I said "No significant coverage in reliable sources" in my nomination. All the sources you quote contain only the briefest of mentions. If there is significant coverage out there, it needs to be demonstrated.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Only the last ref gives it more than a passing mention. A fuller (sorry) version is at English Heritage's Pastscape site, which makes clear that the mis-identification as a hill fort was in a single book published by a local excavation club, the author of which told EN it was "based as the artifical appearance of a scarp as seen from the road to the south". If it had been a widespread mis-identification I would probably have argued for merging somewhere, but I found no evidence that it ever widely thought to be a hill fort. Qwfp (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The first reference in the article says the government has already declared it to be a notable landmark. Dream Focus 01:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing Wikipedia's definition of notable with that of the real world. The document says that Duncorn is one of many hills in the landscape that act as a landmark. By all means, Duncorn Hill should be included in an article discussing the landscape of the area, but the source certainly doesn't prove that the hill is independently notable. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just plain false. The citation is a World Heritage Site study that names nearly a dozen local topographical features as "local landmarks." This is a long way away from being an officially designated historical landmark, which the source never asserts in the first place. Would you kindly read the reference before making outlandish claims for it?  RGTraynor  13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia's definition of notable at WP:N is "worthy of notice".  The existence of a name for a hill is evidence that people consider the hill to be "worthy of notice".  Cartographers are in the business of documenting named geographic features so that we have independent reliable secondary sources for these names.  In this case not only do we have a good map; we have a document that shows the name has been in use since at least 1938, which proves enduring notability.  Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Grove Marine Gardens State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA), which with weaker supporting positions than those I've just mentioned passed easily through AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Every street has a name, is documented on maps, and is detailed in local government publications and other surveys of the area in which it lies. Should we have an article on every street?--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Archaeologists don't excavate streets, geologists don't do field studies of the mineral content of streets, and airplane pilots aren't worried for their safety by the elevation contours of streets. I think a better analogy is with islands.  The problem here is not whether or not streets should have an article, but whether hills should have an article, and in this case a hill that goes well beyond the only identified baseline for geographic notability in this AfD.  That is unless you consider the "hillfort non-notability guideline" (WP:HNNG), which says that hills that don't have hillforts are not notable, for which no supporting examples have been provided.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "in this case a hill that goes well beyond the only identified baseline for geographic notability in this AfD". In the absence of specific guidelines for geographic notability I am using the general notability guideline, which this blatantly fails to meet due to the lack of significant coverage about the subject. Your contention that the article be retained due to the hill simply being "named", "documented" and "worthy of notice" is not supported by policy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - if it turned out that the hillfort was real it would be a different story. But it isn't, so this is just a simple, non-notable hill. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. It's a hill pretty much like all the others around it. It has no hill fort (even presuming that every place in the world that has, or had, a fortification is presumptively notable, which is nonsense), and there are no reliable sources claiming any fame for it on that basis. Consensus is long since firm that the lowest level of government-designated landmark in Britain is not presumptively notable ... but the assertion that this hill IS a government-designated landmark is false. Leaving aside just plain laughable assertions such as that every named geographical or topographical feature on Earth passes WP:N, there's a whole lot of nothing here.  RGTraynor  13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete- The only thing remarkable about this hill is that its history is so spectacularly devoid of anything remarkable. Hard to believe that we actually need to spell out "there's nothing notable about a hill on which nothing has ever happened, but that's the joy of AfD. Facepalm Tarc (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)