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 delete. The delete arguments are stronger. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger La Plante[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate per WP:POLITICIAN, with no significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions in local press and a profile on a veteran's blog of unknown notability. Prod contested by article's creator with rationale on article talk page. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose deletion (but open to further discussion and evidence) - Please see article talk page section for reply and discussion. The article is about a notable, non-officer, military whistleblower. Being a political candidate is a minor fact at the end of the article, so WP:Politician does not apply. A possibly valid concern brought up by NeemNarduni2 is that Veterans Today is possibly not an RS journal, but is instead just a blog. The site claims it is an NPOV and edited journal - "Veterans Today (VT) is an online journal... independent, unaligned voice... VT writers and editors..."[1] If it is established to just be a blog, or cannot be established to be reliable, I will then try to quickly dig up the RS offline sources referenced in the cited Veterans Today article (see article talk page). If I can't, then I will remove my opposition to the deletion. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Promotional article for a non-notable candidate for office - or per the comment above, for a non-notable person. The article is basically a summary of the guy's campaign platform. The three citations include significant profiles/interviews from two obscure publications (Veterans Today, "a journal for the clandestine community", and the Brazil Times) and a passing mention in a local newspaper, the Victorville Daily Press. My own Google search turns up many other people by the same name (a hockey player, a Florida felon), but the only thing I found about this person is a YouTube campaign video. Good luck to User:MBUSHistory; you have a week to find some significant coverage from reliable sources; but without that the person fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the VT source is too problematic as a reliable source. I went to the front page, found an interesting headline in a list of headlines, and quickly found myself being told "As a start in understanding the Challenger disaster hoax it is imperative to grasp the fact that all publicized Apollo missions to the moon and back in the late 1960's until the end of December 1972 (Apollo 17) were a hugely expensive hoax." If this was considered a recognized, respected purveyor of fact, well then, we'd all have this same understanding, right? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Every whistleblower in existence is not automatically notable per WP:BIO 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 WP:NPOL, which he doesn't meet. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I think we have to be careful about deleting articles about candidates for office, especially national office. This person is likely to be be covered further, and in the meantime there is minimal sourcing available. Obviously that should be improved, along with the article. Jus da fax 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: At this point as best as Ballotpedia can tell, he isn't a formally-declared candidate. Given that this district had thirteen candidates go into the primary in 2012, I don't think we can assume that all will get coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.