Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frog Design Inc.


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  05:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Frog Design Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is written like a brochure. best to merge with Aricent. or no ground of significance as an encyclopedia. This article suits the purpose of company purpose from the way its written. Part of notable group/ investment firm like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. It does not mean we should make a directory or corporate profile here. Light2021 (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Frog design is a design firm of international recognition for many decades. If the article has issues, they should be dealt with by improving the article rather than deleting it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep -- a storied company; sample coverage which I believe rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV, in Jony Ive: The Genius Behind Apple's Greatest Products and Basics Product Design 03: Visual Conversations, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, satisfies WP:GNG handily; and merging into the current parent company's article does not make sense, given the history. Article has recently been edited into a more encyclopedic style. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2017 (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.