Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Hupp


 * 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. The main achievement this discussion has produced is to demonstrate that this person's pretty borderline as far as notability goes. While the overall consensus here probably leans vaguely towards deletion; said consensus would be very weak and the article has been substantially improved fairly late in the discussion. I don't think it's correct to make a judgment either way at this point, and the discussion is rather too weighty to reasonably relist. I would suggest a renomination of this article in a month or two if concerns persist after the recent sourcing by. ~ mazca  talk 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anne Hupp

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An alleged heroine of a 1782 attack by Shawnee Indians against a white settlement in Pennsylvania -- a great story, except there is no independent verification of her actions outside of an account written by her great-grandson. The sources linked to the article -- a genealogy web site, a municipal assessment plan that mentions Anne Hupp once in a larger list of names, and a photo of a marker -- do not meet WP:RS standards. A search through Google Books and Google Scholar turn up nothing to verify this story. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No references. Nearly no prose. However....refine your search terms references do exist; Advanced Book Search Showing: Books 1 - 10 of 410 on Anne Rowe Hupp. (0.12 seconds) --Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

entry would need to meet NPOV as well as notability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment:  "Heroine" in any case would reflect a POV however and any
 * Comment -- This is not unreferenced as there is an external link which is an adequate reference. Material on Rootsweb is not necessarily WP:RS, but this is a credible account.  I am not clear if it is taken from a letter or from a published local history, but in either case, it is a reliable source, despite being based on oral tradition.  It is not likely that 3rd party sources are available, but that does not make it WP:OR.  Nevertheless, I am not convinced that the subject of the article is notable.  However, the defence of Miller's Blockhouse is a potential subject for an article, either as a freestanding article, or in one on the place where it was.  Convert to article on Miller's Blockhouse.   Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability and unverifiable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of sources and content.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ann Hupp was considered a "notable woman of Pennsylvania" as determined by a commission of that state . There are numerous independent and reliable sources, as shown by a Google Book search, which attest to her heroic defense of a blockhouse during a prolonged attack by Indians after the able of the male defenders were killed. The notability is attested as well by a historical marker. Satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I am not wearing out my welcome, but there are a few problems here. The link to the "notable woman of Pennsylvania" is just a snippet that shows Ann Hupp's name -- the chapter itself is not available for review (at least not on that page). The Google book search and the link to the blockhouse defense only mention Mrs. Hupp in elusive, fleeting references.  The historic marker does not, I believe, fit into WP:RS standards -- there is also a historic marker for Betsy Ross, another colonial-era figure whose importance has been exaggerated.  (As an aside, I would like to find out the Shawnees' side of the blockhouse event!)  Pastor Theo (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See a newspaper story presenting her story, 217 years after the event. It constitutes another reliable and independent source with significant coverage. A Google news search proves that Hupp is covered in two more books, not available online: "Fort Ligonier and its times : a history of the first English fort..."Subscription -  Ancestry.com - Jan 1, 1932, and "History of Washington County, Pennsylvania." Subscription - Ancestry.com - Jan 1, 1926. Old print books are not always available for full viewing. That so many of them discuss her 24 hour defense of home and family from Indian attack attests her notability, especially with historic markers and with her presence in a book about notable people of that state. If you are troubled by only a snippet view being available online, then go to the Pennsylvania state library or request the books through interlibrary loan. References not being easy to consult is not a convincing ground for deletion. The Native Americans' side of the story is completely irrelevant to the notability of Hupp. Betsy Ross is highly notable, and also pretty irrelevant. The complete narrative is available in at least a couple of full view versions, and I expect the snippet ones pretty much cover the same points. Edison (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a larger issue with reference to documentation provided by dead trees. I have run into this with scientific sources and wanting to add "details" by reference to popular press accounts. This can be dangerous or at least uncertain.

Since we don't have peer review beyond volunteers auditing text, it is helpful to have something that is widely available for verification. I'm not against the practice, and have defended other attempts to include obscure topics. But, it needs some real thought. If you exclude dead tree sources, for obscure topics you really only have google books and maybe the nytimes scanned historical papers as online comprehensive sources. Also, the NPOV may be an issue. Once you put it up there, be prepared for balanced text to describe her as assisting a genocide or as if defending a crack house. Again, NPOV does not mean positive towards everyone who is likely to complain or currently in favor- "heroine" reflects a POV but factual description could still survive if notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment on the Shawnees was, as I stated, an aside -- the only thing we know of the blockhouse incident came from one side of the fight. (Actually, the Post-Gazette link that was added here has someone saying the same thing that I did about the lack of historic perspective from both sides of the fight!) The Betsy Ross comment is not irrelevant -- Ross, like Hupp, is a colonial-era woman who is recalled for an unverified incident that was popularized by a descendant. In Hupp's case, she is being mentioned for basically firing some shots during a conflict with the Shawnees -- and that's it. I am sorry that we cannot agree on this. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So it looks like someone must invest their time in physically visiting a reference library to see what the actual "books" say. Please do not ignore WP:BIO and indulge in some original research for "truth" and "justice" as defined in "Newspeak" in which the Native Americans who scalped her husband were victims of her "oppression" as she unjustly sought to prevent their additionally murdering Hupp and her children. Reliable sources from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries attest her notability. Edison (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is indulging in WP:OR or ignoring WP:BIO. The point remains that the only source of this story is a letter written by her great-grandson, which has been used as the basis of promoting her legend. And furthermore, the sources from the 19th through 21st centuries only mention Mrs. Hupp in very brief -- almost elusive -- citations.  This doesn't fit into Wikipedia's editorial requirements, as I understand it. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The Ancestry.com account: "she, with true Spartanism, snatching up a rifle fired at the approaching savages, and then "ran from porthole to porthole," protruding its muzzle in different directions--to convey the idea of great forces in the house--at each presentation causing the savages to cower behind trees or other objects for protection." She scared armed Indian warriors by sticking a single non-firing gun in and out of a few windows every minute or two? Hello? Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sure you do that every day and twice on Tuesdays. But it is not how impressive you personally think it is, the issue for notability is whether multiple reliable and independent sources have given significant coverage to the story, and that standard has been satisfied. Edison (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment : Edison made my point, she didn't need to be Paton or Rommel, or invent an atomic bomb, just do something notable. Further, sensationalized accounts do no detract from reliable accounts- it may be possible for aliens to spawn children with earth women even if there exist fictional accounts in various tabloids. I guess I'm fixating on treatment of reliable but obscure paper sources that require someone to go to a library to examine. I guess even a legend would be ok if otherwise notable- does her name come up on Janes Defense Weekly even as a joke(" and the outnumbered commando group employed the Hupp strategy to defeat blah blah blah")?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be sarcastic, Edison. The pastor made the point that your references barely mention Hupp. In some cases, she is just thrown out in a sentence. That is not significant coverage. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that the criteria for getting a Pennsylvania Historical Marker defend the criteria of Anne Hupp being notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. And I quote "The person, place, or event to be marked had a significant impact on its times" and "The person, place, or event to be marked is of statewide or national historical significance rather than that of local or regional interest." The Pennsylvania Musuem and Historical Commission believes that Ann Hupp and the site of Miller's Blockhouse is of notable significance and thus is worth recognition on wikipedia. 7jbecker 14:38, 26 June 2009
 * I am sorry, but WP:BIO clearly states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A photograph of a marker is not a "published secondary source material," the first recorded reference of Anne Hupp came from her great-grandson (who was clearly not independent of the subject), and there is no evidence in the article or the fleeting references cited here that Anne Hupp did anything that represented an act of "statewide or national historical significance." Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully disagree, the Pennsylvania Museum and Historical Commission and I quote in their review of "The nomination (of a historical marker) is clear and organized and includes thorough documentation (with selected photocopies and bibliographies from primary and secondary sources) and verification of the facts claimed." If you look at the record of the official marker, it does not include a photograph but the actual inscription of the marker. Also, I feel that there are at least one primary and at least two secondary sources that claim the event happened. The primary being the account from the grandson and the secondary being that it is mentioned in a historical account of the region and another separate book found on google books. Not to mention the many other aforementioned books that mention her on google books whose full record is not accessible as well as a full chapter in the book "Notable Women of Pennsylvania." Also, the fact that there is a marker there represents "statewide or national historical significance" as the qualifications for getting the marker require such. 7jbecker 23:53, 26 June 2009


 * Also, If you read the sources, the gun she was using was actually being fired. 7jbecker 1:02, 27 June, 2009


 * Comment : Assuming the following, that it was plausible for her to have been in the time and place to make her actions possible, that the event of the police action by the original owners (Indians, wording reflects POV concerns only ) occurred and was documented, the first written "evidence" or her actions is a letter from her grandson, that some recognized historical group decided she is noteworthy, let me add a few thoughts and analogies. It isn't clear at this point if the decision criteria are even agreed upon- do you need historical accuracy or just recent secondary source coverage. If you hold only to notability, then it doesn't really matter if the PMHC has arrived at the historically accurate decision of not- if their chamber of commerce asked them to create a legend and the media picked up on it, notability is established and primary source, by some criteria, aren't really relevant. If you need to establish that the subject herself did something notable, and probe the factual accuracy of stories about her, then you need to judge the secondary sources based on the quality of primary sources and try to get at truth. You also need to make some value judgement about obscure versus trivial, a reference book that ignored the obscure in favor of only the well known would seem to serve a small audience.

Essentially the notion of reliable or "credible" secondary sources is called into question- is CNN a credible source when describing religion or Ted Turner? It is impossible for value judgments to escape the "credible" or "reliable" decision as you can't presume reliability when a piece defies primary sources any more than if you tried to call an opinion piece in the same publication "reliable" because the publication is "reliable." Certainly with medical lit a reliable secondary source generally has a track record of publications and conclusions "agreeing" with primary sources- they don't make stuff up and added commentary is "reasonable" based on evidence presented. If they succeeed in making a legend, and the entry reflects that, all seems fine just as if you did a story on any other fictional character that is notable. Certainly with Jesus, some would consider the trivial coverage by Josephus to detract from his notability but if you believe in the miracles or not, he is notable today by most criteria.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * weak keep or merge into Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga reliable sources look trivial, but fills hole in revolutionary war narrative. Pohick2 (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Reluctantly, however, because the topic is one which is harder to source. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2009 (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.