For linear classifiers, do larger coefficients imply more important features? I'm a software engineer working on machine learning. From my understanding, linear regression (such as OLS) and  linear classification (such as logistic regression and SVM) make a prediction based on an inner product between trained coefficients $\vec{w}$  and feature variables $\vec{x}$:
$$
\hat{y} = f(\vec{w} \cdot \vec{x}) = f(\sum_{i} w_i x_i) 
$$
My question is: After the model has been trained (that is, after the coefficients $w_i$ have be computed), is it the case that the coefficients will be larger for feature variables that are more important for the model to predict more accurately?
In other words, I am asking whether the relative magnitudes of the coefficients can be used for feature selection by just ordering the variables by coefficient value and then selecting the features with the highest coefficients? If this approach is valid, then why is it not mentioned for feature selection (along with wrapper and filter methods, etc.).
The reason I ask this is because I came across a discussion on L1 vs. L2 regularization. There is a blurb that says:

Built-in feature selection is frequently mentioned as a useful
  property of the L1-norm, which the L2-norm does not. This is actually
  a result of the L1-norm, which tends to produces sparse coefficients
  (explained below). Suppose the model have 100 coefficients but only 10
  of them have non-zero coefficients, this is effectively saying that
  "the other 90 predictors are useless in predicting the target values".

Reading between the lines, I would guess that if a coefficient is close to 0, then the feature variable with that coefficient must have little predictive power.
EDIT: I am also applying z-scaling to my numeric variables.
 A: Just to add to the previous answer, the coefficient itself also fails to capture how much variability a predictor exhibits, which has a large effect on how useful it is in making predictions.  Consider the simple model
$$
\text{E}(Y_i) = \alpha + \beta X_i
$$
where $X_i$ is a Bernoulli$(p)$ random variable.  By taking $p \to 0$ we can send the usefulness of this predictor to zero as well, but the coefficient will always be $\beta$.
A: "Feature importance" is a very slippery concept even when all predictors have been adjusted to a common scale (which in itself is a non-trivial problem in many practical applications involving categorical variables or skewed distributions). So if you avoid the scaling problems indicated in the answer by @josliber or the low-predictor-variance issue raised by @dsaxton, you still have additional problems.
For example, a more useful measure of feature importance may be the ratio of its coefficient to the estimated error of its coefficient. A high coefficient with a large estimated error would not necessarily be helpful in predictions. So coefficient magnitude alone, even in the pre-scaled situation, is not a good guide to "importance."
Nevertheless, a predictor may be important even if its coefficient's ratio of magnitude to error is low (i.e., it is not "statistically significant"). Linear models provide the ability to take multiple predictor variables into account simultaneously, so including a "non-significant" predictor in a model can improve the overall performance provided by the combined collection of predictors.
Furthermore, attempts to select "important" predictor variables tend to be highly dependent on the particular data sample and often do not extend well to further samples, particularly if the variables are correlated. You can see this for yourself by repeating feature selection on multiple bootstrap samples of the same data set. Frank Harrell, in this answer shows how to use his rms package in R for ranking feature importance, and notes in this answer how to use the bootstrap to get confidence intervals for the ranks. Bootstrapping can serve as a caution to those who put too much importance in "feature importance."
This question from nearly 3 years ago, pointed out by @amoeba, also goes into extensive detail about difficulties with feature importance in multiple regression models.
