Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncorn Hill


 * 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 to delete, default to keep. First agree on what makes a named hill "notable" or "unnotable", then come back & decide whether to keep or merge this material. One could argue, in analogy with settlements, that all named geographical landmarks are notable, or, only those with a clear historic, geological, or geographical value are notable. But no one has made a convincing argument to prefer one over the other -- leading to the present stalemate. No harm keeping this article until that point is agreed on. -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Duncorn Hill

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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.&mdash; 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)
 * Would you mind giving us the exact line of the source that mentions this? I don't seem to be able to access it, and I want to be sure that it's not just a reference to the general area but specifically talks about how this hill in particular is a source.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found the source myself. It literally just says something along the lines of: Fuller's earth has also been found at, and then has a list which includes the hill. It in no way considers it a significant site for this, and indeed it's not like it's a place where there's a mine or an active operation to get fuller's earth.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:04, 11 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.  D r e a m 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?   Ravenswing  13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "landmark" can literally just mean any sort of mark on the land. Someone giving instructions to my house, for example, might mention a large pond as a landmark to look out for when navigating. It is not synonymous with being considered a place of any notable interest. Being called a landmark in a government document is completely different from being "declared" to be a landmark.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:54, 11 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 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)
 * See below, also Roads. Unscintillating (talk) 16:48, 11 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.   Ravenswing  13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Topographical features do not require a castle upon them to be notable. This hill is in the area in which the science of geology was first established by William Smith (geologist).  He surveyed the area himself and other geologists and palaeontologists followed him, as the sources show.  Its appearance in a World Heritage Site study seems quite significant and is far from being nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hillfort, not a castle. That off my chest (sorry), the area may be notable, the World Heritage Site obviously is, but is the hill? It can easily be covered in the respective articles (if it even merits mention at all), but are there any sources which treat the hill as a subject in its own right rather than an element of something greater? Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why I'm even bothering, but ... what's your point, Col.Warden? We're not writing the biography of William Smith here.  The question as to whether or not a place name being mentioned in a site study is "nothing" might be worthy of discussion for a bunch of terribly bored kindergarteners, but it's out of our purview here.  Let's see if I can make this simple: what criteria of Wikipedia policies or guidelines do you claim this article meets and why?   Ravenswing  22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:5 gives our core policies. Amongst them it states that Wikipedia has the function of a gazetteer.  The purpose of a gazetteer is to record placenames such as this and provide some corresponding details.  This place is notable, having been repeatedly noticed, and so we are able to provide such details from the various reliable sources.  There is scope for further expansion and it is our editing policy to keep articles in mainspace so that this may be done.  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can just not see how a document saying "this bunch of hills are important geographic landmarks for this area" can possibly be interpreted to be more than a passing trivial mention.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but did you really think no one would go and look at that link for themselves? The line you misquote is, in fact, "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."  NOT that it has the "function of a gazetteer."  You also should have recognized, long since, that people "noticing" something does not equate to, and has no part of, Wikipedia's definition of notability as presented in WP:N.  Not nearly so nice a try; that's close to insulting our intelligence.   Ravenswing  11:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a plain fact that we have numerous lists and articles which document geographical places in great detail - rivers, mountains, villages, &c. We aim for comprehensive coverage of topics within our scope because it is our policy that there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover.  That policy indicates that we should look to the five pillars for guidance on our scope and gazetteer content is explicitly included in this, as the quotation demonstrates.  I fail to understand why you do not accept this and seem to suppose the contrary.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 11 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.  Tarc (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- per my analysis of the sources, which is as follows:
 * 1)- a passing mention which Colonel Warden, through a creative use of ellipses, presents as a description of Duncorn Hill as notable; when in fact it is a hill to the south of Duncorn hill that's being talked about. Colonel Warden has been warned against dishonest sourcing and really should know better by now. (edit) I see now there are two possible interpretations of that sentence. Striking my original comment with apologies.  Reyk  YO!  01:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2&3) Run of the mill factoids about its name and drainage conditions.
 * 4) Possibly the best claim to notability, as I believe fuller's earth is pretty rare, but I'm not sold.
 * 5,6,7 & 8) Turns out the fort doesn't exist, so there's nothing actually special about the hill!
 * Reyk YO!  00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Current evidence for the fort has not been found but that does not mean that it never existed. The 18th century source says that there was a cairn of stones at that time but they have not been found in current times either.  The site remains in the National Monuments Record and so is still of national interest. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it, now? In point of fact, a search at the National Monuments Record for "Duncorn Hill" provides ZERO hits.   That's Strike Two.   Ravenswing  15:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're searching English Heritage's website there, not the NMR - they are not the same thing. A similar search wouldn't find Daw's Castle either, for example.  Anyway, as the article's sources already indicate, the site is monument number #204516 in the NMR.  Resolving this difficulty of actually finding things on the web is one of the great virtues of Wikipedia - we provide a good starting point by summarising information from such disparate and specialist sources.  Someone might use their smartphone to find out information about this hill when they visit it or plan a walk.  They don't want to be fighting their way through ancient records and specialist databases.  We provide a digestible summary of the important information about the site culled from numerous sources and so provide a good public service.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it's in the NMR, but the record in a nutshell is that there's nothing of note on the hill. That's pretty plain to see. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A record of this sort is a note and the NMR sensibly chooses to keep it rather than deleting it.  All the many other sources demonstrate such notice too.  The fact that they haven't yet found good evidence of your particular interest in fortifications is unimportant.  Our notability guideline explicitly explains that our topics are not required to have any special importance or fame - they just have to have been noticed.  Our topic has been noticed by archeologists, geologists, palaeontologists, geographers, agronomists, walkers, historians, &c.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My own interests are unimportant, so leave that spin out of it. There would be no problem with the hill having a mention in an article or two where it's actually relevant and may have some importance, but it does not warrant its own article. None of the sources provided demonstrate that Duncorn Hill is independently notable. The closest there is is your argument that the site is in the NMR, but as I said the NMR basically says there's nothing of interest there. You're tying yourself in knots trying to keep an article on an entirely unremarkable hill with next to no history or significance, special or otherwise. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic has been remarked upon by numerous authors in numerous contexts. Your claim that it is "entirely unremarkable" is therefore false.  Your POV seems to arise from a special interest in fortifications.  Many hillforts were just enclosures for livestock and so some might think that these were humdrum too - just another corral.  Such judgements are subjective and it is appropriate to bring out their non-policy nature. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, OR Merge and Redirect to Englishcombe. Yes, maybe not the "popular" call... but as scholars did write about the existance of (possible) fortifications, even if not found by later investigations, does show the area has received notice. And even as late as 1975, it was still being writen of as inhabited during Iron Age.  Wikipedia has articles on far less notable locations than this, and at least this one is well sourced to serve our readers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 12:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Since it has been discovered that there is no hillfort, this has gone to being just an ordinary hill that fails to meet the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can surely say that creating this article was no mistake. It had been mistaken as an iron age hillfort at the time in January, but since then the 1966 investigation ref explained that it apparently not a real hillfort. Duncorn Hill was the first Somerset article I started, but I can nevertheless say that I was doing the right thing. I'm sorry if I started all this confusion. Jaguar (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with creating this article. However, since it no longer meets WP:GNG, it will probably be deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reaper Eternal. There was nothing wrong with creating the article; from the sources you had you thought it was a notable site. Information revealed later cast that into doubt, but from the information you had at the time your actions were perfectly reasonable. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Comment Notability (geography) states, "The purpose of this page is to define the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion, to avoid wasting time on unnecessary AFDs..." "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc. The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however. If little information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist for a named geographic feature, there is probably not enough verifiable content for an article."  (emphasis added).  I have noted above the 1938 document, which shows that this geographic feature has more than statistics and coordinates.  The newspaper analysis of a hillfort, the fuller's earth analysis, and the status as a "landmark" are not needed to establish the notability of this topic.  I have stated above a related concept based on the definition of notability in the guideline WP:N, which itself is cited in policy in WP:Deletion policy.  I have also examined more than a dozen geography articles and think it would be easy to get a list of ten thousand articles that would not meet the unclear references to WP:GNG posited here, here is a sampling:


 * Category:Discovery Islands
 * Sonora Island (British Columbia)
 * Stuart Island (British Columbia)
 * Sutil Channel
 * Twin Islands (British Columbia)
 * West Redonda Island
 * West Thurlow Island
 * East Redonda Island
 * Redonda Bay, British Columbia
 * Pendrell Sound


 * New Zealand
 * Burkes Pass
 * Birdling's Flat
 * Barrett Reef


 * Somerset
 * Pen Hill
 * Blake's Pools


 * Queensland
 * Isis River (Queensland)
 * Sandy Cape only extended discussion is about the turtle's, not the cape

Unscintillating (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly Notability (geography) is not policy, it's an editor's opinion. Secondly OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or WP:OTHERSTUFFSHOULDN'T EXIST for that matter) is not relevant to this discussion. See also WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To repeat, Notability (geography) states, "The purpose of this page is to define the existing consensus on geographical article inclusion..." I think that it is misdirection to say that this is "an editor's opinion" as if one person wrote it, when it was at one time briefly a guideline, and nominator has provided no competing viewpoints on how the Wikipedia community consensus views geography articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay that states, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides". Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLORNOTHING is an essay that states, "there are precedents that may have an impact on a deletion discussion." Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like you've identified a lot of AfD-worthy material there. When shall we get started? Tarc (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 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) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously? It's not really a "myth", it's a research investigation that turned out to be wrong, plus I really don't think that's the genuine purpose of an encyclopedia article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps "myth" was a poor choice of words, lets look at it another way; someone has heard that there may have been a hillfort on this site and looks it up on the web, despite what they find elsewhere Wikipedia will tell them the precise nature of this site, and that investigations have shown no evidence for a fort. Simple as that, the article is stating the facts, and is therefore a valuable resource. Pahazzard (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, alrighty. I'd still disagree; Wikipedia's job is not be Snopes, which would get pretty out of hand. And while it's factual, if we included articles on every possible minor misconception (and yes, this is minor, it's an architectural investigation on a small hill that didn't uncover anything) we'd be in quite a pickle, with articles on every single minor argument or conspiracy regardless of significance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if Notability (geography) is just an essay, I support it. This is a great little article on a hill.  Love it.  The Interior  (Talk) 11:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is well done, but the hill is, as of now, not notable. Just a hill, and not much of one at that! Pretty. It is not up to Wikipedia to "dispel myths." Else every hill, nook and cranny would have some legend behind it which "needed" dispelling. Student7 (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) To understand this response, there is an implied WP:Just a hill guideline (WP:JAHG) which says that being "just a hill" makes a hill non-notable. What I don't see are metrics that separate "just a hill" hills from those that are more than "just a hill", and where within the current guidelines and policies WP:JAHG should fit (i.e., WP:IAR, the definition of notability in WP:N, a new SNG).


 * (2) I wonder if respondent has considered Five pillars. Five pillars states, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized...gazetteers."  Gazetteer states, "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."  Unscintillating (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nn geographic feature. Eusebeus (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Not notable Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not notable and not notable as a geographic feature are two very different things.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that an opinion? What is the basis for your opinion?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point was, he didn't just say "non-notable", which kinda invalidates your response. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just a hill somewhere in England. If shellfishes or other things were found, it doesn't mean it is notable. If I make a stroll into the forest or mountains to search for fossils, I will find any, even if it will take me hours, but I will find. Fossils are not a rarity. Even the article says it "might" being a hill fort. But it has not proven.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline explains that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". That's why just not notable is an argument to avoid &mdash; it is too subjective. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.