Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood and Ice Cream

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blood and Ice Cream

Blood and Ice Cream (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The director and lead actor in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz have made the same joke three times in interviews and DVD commentaries - that the two films could be considered part of a "Blood and Ice Cream" trilogy, as they both feature gory violence and Cornetto ice-creams. Neither of the films is marketed as being part of this trilogy, though, and no other sources reference it. Until we can do something more than write this up as the one-sentence joke it appears to be, I don't think it needs a full article. Delete. McGeddon (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge I've thought this also, but as they have referenced it , I think the best course of action would be to merge it into both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz's pages.-Mastrchf91- 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article seems to be a good place to record the documented themes that run through the films, and to act as a way to link them together (although maybe the latter would be better served by a category). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the only documented themes to date are "they both have blood and they both have a coloured ice-cream"; neither Pegg nor Wright has spoken about it in any greater detail than that, and waiting for the possibility of better interview sources in the future seems excessively speculative. Given that the series only contains two films at the moment, the articles can (and do) simply link to one another, for now. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This is true, but the fact that the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy" has been mentioned by them on more than one occasion does lead me to believe that it is at least notable, and as such deserves some mention.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, we can note it, but until the available sources give us more than a one-sentence "both these films have blood and ice-cream", it's better noted in each of the two film articles, rather than being an optimistic and entirely unexpandable stub. --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Like I keep saying they have more than 'blood and ice cream' in them. And everything that is repeated is intentional. Thats what links these films as a trilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliw136 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but we need citable sources confirming that these things are specifically in there as part of the trilogy, and not just as director's trademarks. After all, Arnie says "I'll be back" in virtually every film he's in, but that doesn't link them as part of a series! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The only way to solve this is to accept that its intentional or ask the writers if its intentional. aliw136 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)aliw136 (talk)
Neither option fits with Wikipedia guidelines. "Accept that it's intentional" goes against WP:VERIFY and to "ask the writers if it's intentional" goes against WP:OR. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
... There is obviously the third option of "assume that it is unintentional", which is the only place we can go for now, until further interviews tell us more about Pegg and Wright's view of the trilogy. --McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Does Wiki still have the page for the 'Mediocre American Man' trilogy? There's no formal recognition of the trilogy existing in either Anchorman or The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - but it's still generally accepted that a trilogy exists. If it remains - there's no reason why this shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.95.40.137 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and it's just as unsourced as this one; if there's "no formal recognition" that it exists, then it doesn't have any place in an encyclopaedia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason to keep an article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's very rare for a trilogy like this to be recognised as a trilogy, because we're thinking of the Lord of the Rings type trilogy. --aliw136 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw they were being sold together in a set on Amazon. Supposedly when they finish the last film, it'll be sold in a boxset. (and with three different cornettos joke the writers on the DVD commentary.)--aliw136 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this is true fancruft. Just important enough to be mentioned in the articles on the films. A title which is not used is not notable. In fact , the first reference has the writer using a different possible collective title " Three Colours: Cornetto." Possibly when they finish the films, they will give them a title and we can have an article. DGG (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
They do mention "Three Colours: Cornetto", but they do also describe the series as the "Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy"-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The films are clearly from two different continuities. The only thing they have in commen is they are made by same people. Example, Waynes World and Austin Powers are also not linked for the same reason. TheProf07 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The proponents have not pointed to a single bit of evidence of notability that can be cited. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see this as notable on its own. The best place for it IMHO is a single sentence in both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. No need to merge per se. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. An unremarkable phrase used in an interview or two with no other usage or currency is not an encyclopedia article. It can go be mentioned briefly in the relevant movie articles if desired. Quale (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2008 (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.