Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frozen North Productions


 * 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   merge to Flip's Twisted World. The consensus is that the company is not notable at this time in its own right, whereas the game meets the criteria (following the recent AfD for that article). If the company meets the criteria for inclusion at a future time, then it can always have an article re-created --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Frozen North Productions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not-notable developer who have only one title, which is not yet released. Sources in the article (LinkedIn and an IGN Dev Page) do not constitute significant coverage, nor reliable sources. If in a few months the game becomes a huge success, then they'll probably be able to get an article here - until then, one upcoming game and no press coverage doesn't seem enough. Addionne (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Strongly agreed with Addionne.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.178.35 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Developer without even one game released and has a lack of reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with a merge to the game, as the company isn't notable (yet) but as the game does seem to have enough sources, might as well merge until notability is established. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Flip's Twisted World. The company doesn't seem to be notable, but as they're partnering with Majesco Entertainment, one of the bigger game publishers, the game they're releasing certainly meets notability guidelines. If the company does turn out to be a huge success one day in the future, then it'll deserve a seperate article, but that's a big if.--Hongkongresident (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete the article was originally created by the company itself as a promotional vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.18 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as per Hongkongresident. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The game is not notable, as Hongkongresident says it is. Asserting that it is notable because it is being released with Majesco is an argument to avoid: WP:INHERITED. His/her second point is valid though. If the company becomes notable, then an article can be considered. For now, delete, don't merge. It's looking like the game article may go, as well. — GorillaWarfare talk 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete if it becomes notable some time in the future we can always create a new one or even restore this one. Right now its not notable and may never will beThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flip's Twisted World. If that is found to be non-notable per Articles for deletion/Flip's Twisted World then keep. I have done a big search, finding, , , , and , none of them hugely in-depth, one or two borderline independent from the subject but all offering a degree of coverage beyond a passing mention and enough to create an interesting article. Bigger digger (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with GorillaWarfare and Addionne Distant highway (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge for now; if the game is success and company gets coverage, then split back. Let's not crystal about whether it will become notable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per Hongkongresident; this is a valid redirect but a long way from notable enough for a stand alone article. VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, but with no objection to merging it back out when and if they have more games under their belt sometime in the future. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, a game developer with only one released game is not in itself notable. Greentrees1 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC) — Greentrees1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep or Merge How unusual is this M.C. Escher-like ability to use all available surfaces? My computer gaming extends as far as FreeCell, but I don't recall hearing about (or seeing on the machines of young friends and relations) this facility. Even in a Harry Potter game I was introduced to by a young lady (whose virus-laden computer I'd just fixed) seemed to be governed by vertical gravitic orientation. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It goes back to the NES days of the mid-80s at least. Batman and Ninja Gaiden both had main characters with wall-crawling abilities.  Castlevania III had a playable character who could crawl both walls and ceilings.  When the Super Nintendo came out circa 1991, scaling and rotating graphics were one of the main selling points, and were used (some might say overused) extensively, leading to games like Super Castlevania IV and Super Ghouls & Ghosts, both of which had sections where the environment rotated and the floor became the ceiling and so on.  So the basic concept goes back at least a couple of decades, but that doesn't necessarily mean this game is any more or less notable.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge Did some research and found some reliable sources that seem to imply some notability (and added them to the page). However since the company has only released one game, it might be better suited for a merge instead and possibly split if/when a second project is announced. Deepsix66 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Deepsix66 — Deepsix66 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Most of those sources refer to the game, with only a passing mention to the company.  That said, there was some good info there - I did move some to the Flip's article where it seemed more relevant.  -Addionne (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Several of the new sources do not meet WP:N and do not add credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.129.158 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 69.165.129.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge until such time as publisher becomes independently notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into the game article. The Eskimo (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2010 (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.