Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Coon

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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Coon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, highly PROMO. This is nothing but a vanity article John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - despite the article alternating between being about him and his firm, and it looking like a vanity piece due to suspicious SPA editors, there does seem to be sufficient media coverage of him to indicate notability. He has quite a bit of notoriety from his questionable legal judgement, as we see in the article. In addition to the sourcing already there, there are numerous articles mentioning him in the Beaumont Enterprise [[1]], coverage in The Guardian [[2]], and The Wall Street Journal [[3]] (WSJ info but not paywalled) [[4]]. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage such as a profile of him and not just mentions with regards to the famous cases - hence the weak rather than full keep. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is quite a disgusting abuse of Wikipedia to say the least. Needless to say, he doesn’t meet GNG. Practically none of these sources are about him, rather his shenanigans. Routine at most, to me. Trillfendi (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - blatant self-promotional CV. The sources provided don't prove anything about the subject's relevance. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There seem to be sufficient mentions in reliable sources... and, ironically enough, more for his alleged and actual misdeeds than his accomplishments. I don't understand the characterization of this article as self-promotional because the article's content is geared toward his controversies rather than his merits. Forgery... fraud... racketeering... massive debt... if I was Attorney Coon, I'd want this article deleted. That being said, he seems notable if only because of the controversies he's been embroiled in. The fact that his checkered history is what generates his notability doesn't make him any less notable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[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.