Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Csaba Markus

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Markus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An autobiography that does not establish Notablity, and has no reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. From Markus' LinkedIn page: "Markus's Production company Monoleto Films was founded in 2008" User:Monoleto is the primary contributor to this article. The other language versions are translations of this article, and do not contain other sources.

None of the articles listed were verifiable, and most appear to be press release type promo and/or not reliable sources. Art Business News appears to be a real thing (https://web.archive.org/web/20121114093356/http://www.highbeam.com/publications/art-business-news-p5624) but I don't think it would be considered a RS. "Art Magazine" is quite vague, and unverifiable in relationship to "Csabo"

The books listed are all self published. And a Listicle from the Toronto Sun calling one of his paintings "one of the World's 10 most sensual paintings" is... not very encyclopedic. Theredproject (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional WP:PROMO article. All the tell-tale signs of puffery, professional images upload to commons and many subsequently removed. Lack of RS inline citations. Linkfarm at the bottom. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very sketchy as defined in nomination. Doesn’t have reliable, independent sources. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2022 (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.