Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFrog Ltd.

JFrog Ltd.

JFrog Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted and salted as JFrog. No evidence of notability - sources are all WP:ORGTRIV * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Contrary to the claim that there's "no evidence of notability" for JFrog Ltd., I want to point out that there's plenty of evidence that prove, without a doubt, the notability of JFrog. (e.g. Forbes: "JFrog, a leader in DevOps and DevSecOps solutions"1), Qumra Capital: "award-winning" 2) The company was featured on Forbes "Cloud 100" list and "Bet Mid-Cap Companies" and Inc Magazine's list of fastest-growing private companies in America. Therefore, the article meets WP:COMPANY. I've added references to strengthen my claim. --Omer Toledano (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Source 1: WP:FORBESCON. Source 2: Consists primarily of quotes from the company and hence lacks independent content. Forbes Cloud 100 list: lacks any in-depth coverage. Inc Magazine page: being 581st on a list is really trivial and there's no in-depth coverage there. Wikipedia notability for companies isn't established by awards, it's established by in-depth, independent coverage which is lacking here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Since 2008, JFrog has continuously been covered in-depth by multiple 3rd party sources beyond mere mention. These include Globes, Calcalist, NBC, Yahoo Finance, Barron's, Market Beat, MSN, and more. Needless to say that JFrog is a multi-billion dollar publicly-traded company. With that said, the company does meet WP:COMPANY, without a shadow of a doubt. Please keep. --Omer Toledano (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Globes article is about the company's shares, which by WP:NCORP "Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant." (emphasis added)
• Calcalist article falls under WP:CORPTRIV as a routine transaction.
• NBC coverage did not give any indication as to the significance of the company's regular products/actions
• Yahoo Finance falls under the same category as Globes
• Barron's is paywalled but it seems to fall under the same category as well
• Market Beat is the same thing as Globes
• MSN is the same thing

SecretSpectre (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That, while seemingly 'dry data' and statistics, does not disprove notability. If you've noticed, I've expanded on the company's history and activities. I call to keep the article. --Omer Toledano (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SecretSpectre: Globes is more WP:ORGTRIV (standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: [...] of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts). Ditto for Calcalist. Yahoo Finance isn't quite the same category as Globes in my book, but I would say it lacks depth as all it actually says about the company is some financial statistics. I also can't access Barron's but from the header it is likely the same. Market Beat is a mix of trivial financial coverage and a description of the company that again lacks sufficient depth. And likewise with MSN - more trivial financial coverage that is not in-depth. I feel like I'm being gish galloped here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Dry data only proves the "thing" exists, not notability here on Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as passing NCORP. This is a mature Israeli company by now with plenty of CORPDEPTH coverage. Move to JFrog. gidonb (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Could you post links to the 2 best sources you've found? That would help a lot. M kuhner (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep--היידן (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:JUSTAVOTE with no reasoning won't convince anyone and will be ignored by the closing admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This article lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Aneirinn (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Sources I find are funding rounds, PR items and the like. Nothing to show notability. Sourcing in the article isn't helpful (most are yellow/orange, so of average notability per Source Highlighter) and the sources above are as explained in the comments above mine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The actual description of their product is so useless here that it's undecodable to the layperson (and contradictory, why is Inc Magazine calling an Israeli company a best American company?), and the last half of the article is pretty much acquisitions of companies without what they do specified (and sounding like meme companies named at random), and then the usual 'pivot to AI' and a contract with NVidia for whatever their services are. When you create a company article, it needs to be clear what the thing does in the first place and in plain English, which this article fails to do considerably.. Nathannah • 📮 20:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Per nom, much of the sourcing is WP:ORGTRIV. I also share Nathannah's concern about the Inc Magazine source, which lists the company's location as Sunnyvale, CA. Article definitely needs better sourcing than what's shown here.--DesiMoore (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Article does not fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Independent secondary sources discuss JFrog's products, position in the market, competitors and strategy in great detail, in accord with WP:NCORP. (For context: fiscal revenue in 2025 is $531.8 million.) Notability is determined by the strongest sources, not the weakest. Concerns regarding article prose etc. are content issues and do not demonstrate WP:NCORP failure. Textcurator (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 1 June 2026 (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.