Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqulyn Longacre


 * 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. The relisting shows a strong Keep. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Jacqulyn Longacre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the executive director of an individual local chapter of a national organization. That's not a claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia — the national executive director would almost certainly qualify, but not the director of every individual chapter in every individual city. The article isn't well-sourced, either — of the four sources here, three of them just glancingly namecheck her existence as a soundbite provider in the process of failing to be about her, while the fourth is to an interview with her in an "oral history project" (but being the subject of an interview does not confer notability either.) I'd be willing to let this go if it were sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but not even one of the sources here does that. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 01:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nominator. My news sweeps did not find sources to satisfy the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep While not a national figure, she was quite prominent in Oklahoma. Was nominated to Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame and this year a play was produced honoring her and other women who made significant contributions. I reworked the piece, adding several outside sources. Her field, reproduction and women's health, was not likely to have been even discussed in public through most of her career. That there are news articles and a book acknowledgement and a hall of fame nomination speaks to her notability. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonder if you might (1) cut all the non-references as per WP:RS -- I click on links and I don't find the search term 'longacre' (2) cut unreferenced verbiage (3) add more reliable references, and I'll consider changing my vote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not remotely sure that I understand what you are asking. Are you asking me to rewrite the whole article? I didn't write the article, but per deleted articles, before one votes one is supposed to attempt to verify notability and find sourcing. I did that and reworked the entire career section. If you do not like what I wrote, or want to change it, feel free, that is what Wikipedia is about, anyone can edit. I do not understand what you mean by don't find the term "longacre" in the sources I added. I get if you cannot access them because I am not in the US, but you didn't say you cannot open them. However: Other women featured in the production ...Jacqulyn Longacre", Jacqulyn Longacre, a lifelong advocate for women's issues and rural health programs, gratitude to the staff of RHS especially Jackie Longacre, "Longacre, Jackie.. Born in Robeline, Louisiana, she grew up around Wewoka, Oklahoma.. She founded Rural Health Projects, Inc.", Jackie Longacre director of the Northeast Oklahoma Area Health Education Center", Jackie Longacre director of the agency, Jackie Longacre, director of the Northwest Oklahoma Area Health Education Center, Jacqulyn Longacre 1993 Inductee Every single source cited here has a direct reference to her. The other 2 links I added tell when RHP started and what Perinatal Coalition was. Based on my analysis I find she is notable.SusunW (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of those links fail our sourcing rules in one of two ways. Every last one of them either (a) namechecks her existence, but fails to be about her (a person does not, for example, get a Wikipedia article just for being thanked in the acknowledgements section of a book), or (b) doesn't count as a reliable source at all (the "archive-edu-2012.com" link, for example, comes up as a dead link, so I can't even verify what it is.) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GNG states that articles about people "need not be the main topic of the source material ..." Each one of the articles from NewsOK talks with her in depth about the programs the organization she is directing. The book is about the RHP which Longacre founded. As for notability, it states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Multiple sources confirm not only that she was working in health services for women and rural families, but that she was considered a key figure long after her retirement. If I can find these sources from outside the country and on-line, then there are surely sources which exist to confirm it there. SusunW (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, she doesn't have to be the main subject of every single citation in an article — I didn't say otherwise. But she does have to be more than just glancingly namechecked in at least some of them. GNG does not confer notability based on the mere existence of text matches on a person's name; it confers notability based on the substantiveness of the coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. She ran reproductive health programs in Oklahoma between 1969 and 1996. It is a very conservative state and she was not likely to have been front page news. In fact, one of the articles clearly shows that there was considerable conflict about the programs she ran for teenagers and gave her defense of those programs. That the state chose to honor someone who did the kind of work she did is notable. That there are "any" articles to prove that they honored her is even more remarkable. The articles in question do not just mention her name, they credit her and the programs she directed with improving health for women and rural communities. Multiple mentions (regardless of whether they are a single line or not) in multiple sources saying the same thing over time confirm her contributions and that her state thought her contributions were valuable. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Changing my vote to Weak keep based on references above. Still, article should be severely trimmed, such that only referenced sentences should stay. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is obvious notability here. Questioning sections of the article is unrelated to whether it should be deleted or not. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (I came to this from another discussion. If that is canvassing I am shocked, shocked!) There are plenty of independent sources in the article or noted above to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Inclusion in the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame suggests at least a degree of notability, as it is meant to honor "Oklahoma women who serve as pioneers in their fields, made significant contributions to the State of Oklahoma, or have championed other women, women’s issues, or served as public policy advocates for the issues important to women." But the oral history interview clinches it for me as it includes a page-length biography of Longacre in addition to the 30+ page interview. gobonobo  + c 06:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame inclusion. If Oklahoma is about the same size as Cambodia or close to twice the size of Portugal, her notability should be accepted at face value. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability on the basis of surface area is new to me. Portugal has more than twice as many people, and their hall of fame includes people like Cristiano Ronaldo. Oklahoma has nobody like that. But I hasten to say I have nothing against Okies. Vasco da Gama, much less important than Ronaldo based on word count, still... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Hmph --Just off the top of my head: Jim Thorpe, Johnny Bench, Shannon Miller, John Ross (Cherokee chief), Will Rogers, by choice Nadia Comăneci all who I'd venture to say are more famous with a much longer legacy than that footballer who I never even heard of. :) SusunW (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Per Susun and Rosie.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 WP:Namechecking 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 . 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  tag one if you thought the notability of the subject was questionable. It obviously was not the case that the subject was  not notable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:24, 12 August 2015 (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.