Everything is wrong with this unpleasant article
This article on Vernon is a hatchet job from start to finish. It doesn’t belong on Wikipedia in that POV form: either he is notable, or he is not. If he is notable, then we keep it, but lets try to ensure it is a bit more balanced. He is a delightfully idiosyncratic, entertaining, bright, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast, the kind of chap who likes to fling a few rocks into the canal, but not some kind of hard core fanatical conspiracy theorist (whatever that is, presumably someone who disagrees with your own version of the facts). My view is that the whole article is a serious breach of the Wikipedia rules on living persons biographies, in no small part because he is not a criminal or a raving lunatic, and not a threat: but an author who you might even describe as a science fiction writer or story teller, someone who certainly doesn’t fit into conventional mainstream science writing, but is stimulating, communicates well to a wide audience and always has something interesting and provocative to add to a debate. I find it petty and unpleasant in tone, and as you all seem to know so much about him, and I am no expert, I’d urge everyone to tone it down a bit.Excalibur (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable secondary sources write about a subject, not anyone’s personal opinions or the way in which the subject wants to present himself. If the predominance of such sources say that someone is as described in this article then that is what we say. The reason that this article is unpleasant may well be that Coleman himself is unpleasant. I see no evidence that he is in any way “a delightfully idiosyncratic, entertaining, bright, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast”. Please provide some such evidence if he is. There was a deletion discussion about this nearly a year ago that resulted in the article being kept, as there was no consensus for deletion, but if you think it should be deleted then you are welcome to start another one, in which I may support you. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I’ve just reverted the article to a good version from yesterday. Apologies to good faith editors whose work has gone, but that nonsense couldn’t stand. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Much like similar discussions on Andrew Wakefield, an article is capable of being reflective of the facts regardless of whether you accept them to be true or not. The terms “widely discredited” and “conspiracy theorist” are used on pages of individuals who have made similar debunked medical and conspiratorial claims and is not an insult levied solely at Coleman as you are suggesting. In comparison, claiming “he is a delightfully idiosyncratic, well-liked, anti-establishment iconoclast” would be pushing a biased POV which falls afoul of Peacocking. Coleman has garnered criticism from both the medical community and the mainstream media due to his claims that: vaccines are dangerous, AIDS doesn’t exist and Covid-19 is a hoax (among others). The outlining and debunking of Coleman’s medical claims is supported by evidence from various widely-respected and impartial sources. Further still, counter to your statement, Coleman was ruled to have made claims which were a threat to public health, twice, by the Advertising Standards Authority. This article has been written by numerous editors over the years and no one person holds sway over its tone; you can observe for yourself how previous edits have been made to best represent the subject. If you have any peer-reviewed medical journals or similar credible evidence supporting any of Coleman’s medical claims, please share it with the community. MrEarlGray (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)