Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqulyn Longacre
per SusunW's sourcing. Bearcat's source analysis is wrong; he's equating depth of coverage with length of it. Crediting the subject with state-wide health care improvements is depth, even if it's done concisely. I don't see the quasi-word "namecheck" in any policies or guidelines (the amechecking essay is about adding redlinks to lists). There's also the bio and long, published interview. It's almost certainly a quixotic exercise to nominate for deletion someone who was honored with a US-state-level hall of fame induction. I mean {{em|really}}. Do you think they did that because she had a nice haircut?  Such honors are based on a lifetime of notable work.  It's a misuse of AFD process to try to bend it toward general article improvement; that's what article talk pages are for. It would have been more constructive to use inline cleanup templates for specific issues in the article, and the {{tlx|Notability}} tag one if you thought the notability of the subject was questionable. It obviously was not the case that the subject was {{em|clearly}} not notable
— User:SMcCandlish, 07:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)