Deletion of Duncorn Hill

Comment: 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 , there's a whole lot of nothing here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Wikipedia's definition of notable at  is "worthy of notice".&nbsp; The existence of a name for a hill is evidence that people consider the hill to be "worthy of notice".&nbsp; Cartographers are in the business of documenting named geographic features so that we have independent reliable secondary sources for these names.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)