Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penycloddiau

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 keep. Courcelles 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Penycloddiau

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

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

This non-notable hill does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Quable (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how this hill does not satisfy inclusion criteria, without resort to tautology? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Geographical features such as this are typically considered notable. Even just from a geological standpoint this one is particularly so with coverage going back over a century [1][2] and it's one of the largest hill forts in Wales.[3]--Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Article is remarkably well-sourced for its size and geographical features are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - a fully sourced article about a named geographic feature. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep meets several distinct notability criteria. S a g a C i t y (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2010 (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.