Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago After Dark


 * 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. The nominator's argument (lack of significant coverage) was not convincingly challenged by the those !voting to keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Chicago After Dark

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage (not a series of mentions in passing) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article needs work that much is clear but I do believe this film is notable. It might not pass the requirements of WP:NFILM but the company that made this film was one of the few that made movies with all black casts. I'm not comfortable with removing this article at this time as it is a small but important facet of 1940's American film history. There is a lot that needs to be done to salvage this article and I would vote to remove delete it if it wasn't for its historical importance for the time.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 06:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Any possibiity of locating sources to establish notability? Trying a relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I completely agree with Dr vulpes above. The page needs work, but the subject absolutely played a critical role in cinematic history. It needs love, not to be deleted and forgotten about. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete While the previous comments are understandable, could any refs be found that show notability? Upon a search, I couldn't find much refs to show GNG. If any are provided, I will change my vote. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't seem to be enough substantial coverage about the film on its own; it is usually mentioned in passing as one of many examples of the 500 race movies from this era (this one is from 1946). It was shown for the first time in 40 years at the 2000 Harlem Week Black Film Festival; it seems better known for its posters rather than the content of the film itself. (In 2000, the plot was described as, "A lady escapes from the 'nut' house in this comedy classic.") An October 1985 article in Film Comment by film historian Donald Bogle about race films characterizes this one and Lucky Gamblers as "a blatant tribute to male chauvinism" based solely on how they were marketed. Whether that is a fair assessment of the film itself or not, it appears there are many other films of this genre that are more notable than this one. (I was originally going to suggest "Merge" with Race films, but as there's no obvious place to include it on that page if this one is deleted, and the other page requires work anyway, I'm OK with deleting this one and fixing the other one in parallel, and trying to work in a mention that way.) For those who are interested in this topic, please see Oscar Micheaux or Donald Bogle. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Another data point (as background): See this one-star review of "Chicago After Dark" in a vintage film forum which calls it "Godawful, and having nothing to do with Chicago..." Cielquiparle (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.