Deletion of Houston McCoy

Comment: This individual is not |notable for anything other than this |one event, and regarding other aspects of the subject's life, there seems to be nothing more than trivial information. In cases of borderline notability, the wishes of the article subject should be respected
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: not really enough to survive 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: The one event was clearly notable enough for an article, but not for a standalone biography due solely to his involvement in that |one event
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The blp1e assertions are, IMO, inappropriate, if Houston himself is covered in  which don't focus on the shooting incident.  I believe the references supplied so far make clear this is the case.  WRT the  essay -- this essay is routinely mis-cited in {{tl|afd}}, (1) as if it were a policy; and (2) ignoring its actual advice.  The Coatrack essay is clear in its advice that deletion should be a last resort when attempting to deal with a coatrack concern.  There is no record on Talk:Houston McCoy that the nominator, or anyone else, ever tried to raise this coatrack concern.  The coatrack essay makes some interesting points.  I like the names the author of the coatrack essay gave to different kinds of coatracks.  I like the "wongo-juice" name best.  What I generally find, when people claim authority under the coatrack policy, is that when they are asked to be specific about which of the different types of coatrack described in the essay they think an article contains an instance of, they are unwilling or unable to do so.  For me this very seriously erodes how much confidence I have in their arguments.  So, I ask our nominator to be specific -- which kind of coatrack do you see here?  And why didn't you voice your concern on the talk page, instead of nominating the article for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: I am persuaded by the argument that this article falls under the prohibitions of , and thus should be deleted.  However, I wish that when the determination is made, we could have final decisions include clear "arguments" like a court decision would from a judge.  My concern is that it be absolutely clear that we are deleting this issue only because of , and that the personal appeals of the subject and/or any high ranking members of the WP team have no persuasive power.  I would like it clear that we are not setting a precedent that personal appeals from BLP subjects have any bearing on our decisions.  That is, if a person meets our guidelines, and our information is properly sourced, that person does not have recourse to have the info removed for any reason.  I know that this is current policy, but I wouldn't want this AfD to make others believe that our policy is shifting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: My gut feeling on this is that since Jimbo Wales wants it deleted, then anyone with a modicum of power, or a desire to have a modicum of power, appear to jump on the bandwagon. Not to mention that there have been some rather bad faith comments about those who posted to support retention vs. those in power (or those characterized as having a "seriouz-clue", while those who have posted to support retention have been summarily dismissed with those words, apparently we don't have a "seriouz-clue". There have several reasons given for why  doesn't apply, including a highly publicized suit for Workman's Comp as a result of the whole incident as well as the lawsuit against the film company.  hasn't been given a rationale for why this is coatrack. I'm aware of the meat and potatoes of the mysterious past history, and although my comparison to another article subject wanting his article deleted was also summarily dismissed, I'd venture to say that anyone related to McCoy has not engaged in wholesale harassment of editors on Wikipedia while touting an agenda to get it deleted. This person ''is'' notable and there is an agenda at work here to get this article deleted. That content is not suitable for merging with the Whitman article as it goes well beyond the scope of that article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)