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 speedy keep- evidently a notable person, the fact his ideas are 'wrong' doesn't mean we delete, not to mention the malformed AfD. J Milburn 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's ideas are totally stupid and very wrong. How can we have an article on this guy? Voortle 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. The validity of the article subject's ideas has nothing to do with the appropriateness of having the article. Even kooks, as long as they're notable, should have an article. What's next--delete the Flat Earth article? Owen× ☎ 23:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this article and the flat Earth article, is that several centuries ago, the flat Earth was the predominant belief about the Earth's shape even by scientists. This guy's ideas have never been widely believed. Voortle 19:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. The subject's personal merits are irrelevant. Someguy1221 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total nonsense. Iapetus is not an artificial world, the face on Mars is not artificial etc. Voortle 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Definitely notable it appears this article wasn't even posted correctly for afd. --Djsasso 20:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Hoagland's theories did get coverage in major media, so he is a notable figure whether his ideas were widely believed or not. -Satori ^(talk) 21:55, 2 September 2007 (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.