Deletion of Raymond Hoser

Comment: this 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: meets , though not .  I've added "findsouces" above to facilitate viewing GNews results.   is easily trumped by notability: the point is then to get NPOV in the article.  Crusio is correct in saying the article needs re-writing.  Takver's edits help; I can see why this one was nominated given the state it was in yesterday, but I think it doesn't qualify for deletion now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:PROF||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: this person has had 8 books published between 1989 and 2000, this is enough for notability alone. Then add to it two of those books resulted in convictions for contempt of court in Victoria, another one was the subject of proceedings to surpress its publication. Just today  another court case(administrative tribunal) action completedhttp://www.theage.com.au/national/devenomised-snakes-ruled-dangerous-20081015-5128.html?page=-1. Then theres the herpetology information. Yes the article is controvercial but it because this guy attracts it, BLP doesnt exclude controversies it just require them to presented in a balance way(, ) with reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE)