Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov
I detest the creeping trend of people arguing that because something is patently absurd, the rules regarding notability and reliable sourcing go out the window. New Scientist may well cover 'whacky' things, but in the sense of a biography rather than a theory, that doesn't do much to change the subject's status re: or any other measure of notability. It remains a reliable secondary source, and extensive coverage isn't nullified by something being unassociated with reality
— NONE, NONE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)