It was an interesting thoery, but IMO his habit of making similar claims every time an interstellar object is discovered cast doubt on that original theory.
I note that article seems quite biased against Loeb. For example, they cite USA Today strongly criticizing him, which is not a reputable source in this debate. Wikipedia also doesn't mention that many other astrophysicists think that his 'Oumuamua theory is unlikely but not crazy. They only cite very negative criticism, but not the many more neutral responses. They also don't mention that he is far from the only one believing that 'Oumuamua appears to have a highly unusual shape. Wikipedia tries to paint him in the worst light possible.
I've got no horse in this race, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can edit the article[0] to fix anything that you feel is incorrect and/or not adhering to the encyclopedia's policies. You could also bring up your concerns on the talk page[1].
My edit would be reverted, and my talk page complaints would take a large amount of effort that likely ultimately goes nowhere when it's up against established editors. Instead I was telling you here that Wikipedia is not automatically unbiased just because it could theoretically be edited by anyone.