Gyurkovicsarna: An IMDb link and the Swedish equivalent (see WP:NFSOURCES ).   Appears to fail WP:NFILM .   Secondary and tertiary sources may exist, but nobody has seen fit to add them.  Lithopsian ( talk ) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions .  Lithopsian ( talk ) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sweden .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The current reference doesn't prove the film is notable.  It is a database generated profile similar to IMDB, so makes it is a WP:SPS source and is non-rs.  It has effectively been copied from one profile into another profile on here with nothing to satisfy WP:V .  Searching Google Books on the subject names finds loads of passing mentions.  There is no doubt that it exists but currently it is unsourced.  scope_creep Talk 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG / WP:NFILM .  Note the film is at least occasionally referred to as The Gyurkovics Family SIGCOV in this book [14] SIGCOV in this book [15] Brief coverage in this book [16] The Swedish language article references ( Svenska Dagbladet , 20 september 1920, sid. 11) Mentions in these books [17] [18] — siro χ o 20:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment don,t turn it in to a redirect to an article that is not the same subject (there was a redirect loop created in the article of John W Brunius).  Keep the original or delete it so there is a red link and in future someone can make it into a noteworthy blue article.  Geerestein3 ( talk ) 20:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Extra note: there are claims that the Svensk Filmdatabas is similar to IMDb, but as far as i can see, is that the Svensk databas is from the Swedish filminstitut and is not open for the public to amend or adjust in comparison to IMDb, so there is already a big difference.  In the Swedish database there is also a interesting caption 'Kommentarer' Geerestein3 ( talk ) 21:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the sources presented above by Siroxo attest notability.  The film was apparently a commercial success .  Note:  1) the page is not unsourced, it's insufficiently sourced (and that is not a reason for deletion, nor is the fact that no one bothered to add sources that indeed exist)  2) and of course the Svensk filmdatabas is much more reliable than IMDb, and this, specially on a Swedish film.... - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Page 62-64 of the ref 2 above "Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish" is detailed enough for a WP:SECONDARY ref. I couldn't see Ref 1 but assuming it the same as Ref 1 in quality, there should be enough.  The others one are poor existance to non-existant.  Posting passing mentions is useless to everybody.  scope_creep Talk 06:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources unearthed above are okay - there's enough for an article here.  Also, as noted above, the Swedish Film Database entry has a section "Kommentarer" [19] that contains contemporary press coverage, which is a very welcome for old movies.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 06:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep not that much coverage, but Masculinity in the Golden Age of Swedish Cinema offers enough.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: in light of comments above about the Swedish Film Database , I have posted the following at  the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Swedish Film Database - reliable source for Swedish and non-Swedish films and actors I make the case there that this is a reliable database; if you agree or disagree, please chime in.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per sources above.  As noted above, Svensk Filmdatabas is not a crowdsourced website but published by the Swedish Film Institute and gets its information from the production companies.  / Julle ( talk ) 19:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Inclusion, however, doesn't mean much more than the fact that it's a Swedish film with some kind of distribution. But other unearthed sources are good enough.) / Julle ( talk ) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Database generated profiles are not reliable by long consensus and it is WP:PRIMARY so can't be used to establish notability.  The argument has already been made that your essentially copying information from one location to another on the internet with no intellectual input, i. .e what drives the encyclopeadia.  That cannot be as seen as any kind of intellectually reliable way of building an encyclopeadia.  scope_creep Talk 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think folk realise how unreliable these databases are.  There seems to be this tacit assumption that perhaps due to the organisation naming, its an Institute, therefore its must be reiable.  They get there info from the production companies.   Notthing could be further from the truth.  There is no correlation between how prestigious an organisation is and how good there data is and often its converse because they don't want expose how bad things are and that is seen time and time from British utility company, to German rail companies to America healthcare provides to French nuclear regulatory bodies.  Its all the same gig.  So please, less and more fact checking.  WP:SECONDARY sources are good standard.  scope_creep Talk 05:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you have a personal bias in this.  You have to take into the equation that we are talking here about a movie from 1920.  The production company doesn't exist so they didn't provide the information, and there is no suggestion that they filled the information with other databases in the internet.  On the contrary there is information that only can be gather from pre internet sources.  With your comparison to America healthcare en nuclear regulatory, you are comparing apples with i don't know children toys? .  (not every database is the same)  The fact is that an institut has published information on a movie and that there is no reason in this case to believe or suggest that they didn't do their due diligence.  It scares me that you come with your one speculations and personal opions and make generalizations and projections to other area's but don't provide actual prove for the case at hand (the movie!!).  That is something we could use less.  The assumption that i, or other users.  didn't check facts in this case is so very false and scary.  I just wished your had checked the facts yourself before starting an editwar.  If wikipedia can not rely on information provided in this article by using the swedish filmdatabase (and yes your narrative would be beter suited for the IMDb database) then there is no point in making articles.  Every kind of source, past and future, has reliability issues but we cannot use a theory on databases in general and therefore exclude every kind of information that comes from a source that calls itself a database.  Every database should be judged on its own merits.  And i believe in combination of Wikipedia goals the use of the database of the filminstitut is fair use for information provided on a topic about a movie of 1920 from Sweden.  (until prove is given otherwise about the specific database)  Geerestein3 ( talk ) 09:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not making an argument about "these databases", nor am I looking at the name.  I'm talking about a specific database, Svensk Filmdatabas, which has long been discussed on Swedish Wikipedia.  I'm well familiar with the weaknesses and limitations of this particular source.  That note was, however, irrelevant for my decision to argue keep; I think the sources noted in the conversation are good enough without Svensk Filmdatabas.  / Julle ( talk ) 09:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Julle , since the Swedish Film Database covers 10s of 1000s of non-Swedish films, I’m interested in using it as a reliable source in other film articles.  I’m interested in the discussions you mentioned on the Swedish Wikipedia about its strengths and weaknesses.  If you are so inclined, I’d be interested in learning more, perhaps either on the AfD talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard link I posted above.  Thanks, — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know anything about how reliable it is for foreign films, I'm afraid.  / Julle ( talk ) 14:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scope creep , that’s a bold assertion about the databases.  I spent several hours looking at our articles on film databases and I don’t think that’s necessarily true of several such as this one and the British Film Institute ’s index.  It’s not hard to capture the information off the film credits of the film itself.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to the nominato r: @ Lithopsian : I'd say this looks like a Snowball keep, would you consider withdrawing the nomination?  (The debate about databases seems like a different issue and can be pursued elsewhere, I suppose).  Thank you.  Best, - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done.  Lithopsian ( talk ) 16:30, 3 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep