Deletion of Roger La Plante

Comment: Every whistleblower in existence is not automatically notable per  just because the word "whistleblower" is present in the article — for him to become notable as a whistleblower, there would have to be a ''lot'' more coverage of his whistleblowing than has been shown in this version of the article as written. All that's really present is a bit of passing acknowledgement of his whistleblowing in coverage of the candidacy — which is ''not'' the kind of coverage of a political candidate's prior background that it takes to make a credible claim that the candidate has preexisting notability ''for'' that background. If he ''wins'' the seat he's running for, then he'll absolutely qualify for an article at that time, and I'd be willing to reconsider this if ''much'' better sourcing could be shown for his whistleblowing background — but as things stand ''today'' the only criterion we can measure this against ''right now'' is , which he doesn't meet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NPOL)