Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extol International


 * 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 no consensus.  Kurykh  20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Extol International

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. I have issues with notability, verifiability, as well as possible spam. Mr Senseless (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note This page was previously speedily deleted on July 15, 2007, for non-notability per WP:CORP. Ariel  ♥  Gold  11:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like spam to me. The company has a profile on just about every site which gives tech companies a place to list themselves.  What makes it difficult is that is look like there is a company by the same name out of New Jersey. Keep  I am going to change my vote to keep, enough sources that make non trivial mention of Extol have been mentioned.  I would like to make sure that these are actual articles and not PR pieces written to promote the company, but assuming good faith, I have to go with keep. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly fails WP:CORP. -Drdisque (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It definitely fails WP:CORP. I sympathize the author for trying to believe a company that may be considered large in his area would be notable, but it seems he is still new to Wikipedia.  He needs to learn the ropes of WP before proceeding with authoring more articles and first learn the different article guidelines and standards we have.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs   10:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no evidence that the company meets WP:CORP, and the author told me on my talk page that even within his area, no reliable sources exist.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge what content there is into the Pottsville, Pennsylvania article. Jeffpw (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (Wehberf (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)) If I find an article from a respect paper would that qualify it as notable?  I read though the documents in WP:Corp and yet I am still fuzzy on what is notable and what isn't.   Apologies for making everyone run around like this.
 * Wehberf, thanks for your efforts. What you will need is coverage from reliable sources allowing us to verify the information. That would include coverage by financial media and industry media. It must be independent of the company. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Wehberf (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)) I am trying :) Would this qualify http://inquirer.philly.com/rss/business/newfifty.asp  It's the largest Philadelphia Paper.  It's #41 on the list of the fasting growing top 50 companies.  Cool Beans---  I also found it listed on the fastest growing 500 in Inc Magazine.  http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2007/company-profile.html?id=1999462
 * They certainly do. Keep based on Wehberf's references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Wehberf (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC))Thank you... I feel I did find the qualifications based on my understanding of the terms and conditions, do we have an agreement if the page can live? Again thank you everyone for your input.. I value keeping Wikipedia spam free as well and I do agree with the general mindset that the company should be noteable, that being stated, I did find references in mainstream media to support that the company is notable. Please advise if I can remove the rapid deletion request.


 * Delete. Fails notability guidelines for corporations and organizations. Media coverage is trivial and not independent of the topic. -- slakr  \ talk / 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

((74.94.35.29 (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC))) Top 500 fasting growing firm in the United States as per Inc Magazine is trivial? I guess we all have our opinions... Personally I wish my firm was on that list.
 * It certainly does help. Has Inc Magazine ever actually written an article about this company?  The point of the notability criteria is that the information in the article must be verifiable from independent sources.  Just the name of the company on a list doesn't provide or verify any information about the company, but an article would. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Wehberf (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) I did find another reference to them in a trade magazine on doing Krispy Kreme's EDI work - http://www.inboundlogistics.com/articles/toolkit/toolkit1106.shtml and I also found another profile of the firm on Forbes Magazine http://itresearch.forbes.com/detail/ORG/980279220_808.html and another profile of the firm on BusinessWeek http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=983770 As you can tell I am really trying to put effort into this one because honestly I do feel the company is notable. The company just bought a building downtown, hiring people right and left that otherwise would of left this area. It's notable to myself, the town I live in, Forbes Magazine, Business Week, the Philadelphia Inquirer and next time you order a Krispy Kreme donut remember that Extol built the back end process to make sure that donut was delivered for you to eat. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is.
 * Comment - If you can find more sources like this one, then I'd easily go for a keep. The other two are simply business directories. -- slakr  \ talk / 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (Crackers8199 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) A few points: #1 - In reference to there being "a company in New Jersey with the same name," it is a separate office and branch of the same company.  #2 - If a major, global entity like Krispy Kreme using Extol's software to manage all aspects of their corporate finances doesn't make Extol a "notable" company, then in all honesty I'm not really sure what would qualify them as such. — Crackers8199 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(Wehberf (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) FYI -- to be fair I showed crackers via IM this thread.. he lives within the town so it's not an unbiased view, however it is valid.. especially with this full disclosure.
 * Comment At this point I see no reason to change my vote. Wehberf, there is no reason to canvass voters pages asking them to do so.  We watch this page and are aware of changes made.  One article about Kispy Kreme does mention Extoll, but the coverage qualifies as trivial, notability is not contegious, being used by a notable company does not make one notable, the only thing that does are sources.  If there are more sources like the Krispy Kreme article we can build a case, but as it is all I see are biz directories. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (Wehberf (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)) I understand your position Leivick, so I went on more of a mission to find press regarding this company.  I found this article from E-Week that states that most the pasta grocery items people pick up are driven by Extol (I apologize in advance regarding the "you must click to skip ad" for E-weeks format. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1789447,00.asp .  I could get one or two articles like this per hour if I keep poking around.  However I really do feel that I did state my case well.   If you need more examples I will continue to post examples.

((Wehberf (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC))) I wanted to know the status of this...  it's keeping me up at night..

*Delete - I am unconvinced by the sources. As an up and coming company, they may become notable but don't clear WP:CORP for me at this time -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - changing my opinion. The sources cited in the article remain unconvincing.  However, we have an IT Jungle article, and Eweek article which are more substantial so scrapes by WP:CORP.  Those news pieces need to be added as references into the article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (Crackers8199 (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)) Here is another article, showing how their software has helped a $135M fruit growing company sync their data with WalMart (just as the above article posted by wehberf showed them helping the pasta company do the same) - http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs042704-story02.html. Krispy Kreme, and helping smaller companies sync data with the world's largest retail chain...somehow that's not notable?  I don't understand...really, I don't.  I don't know what more they can do to become notable if the above doesn't get them there...


 * Comment (Wehberf (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)) it's worth noting that the evidence from Inc Magazine, Eweek, BusinessWeek, Forbes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Supply Chain magazine and the fact that Krispy Kreme as well as several other companies of notable size run their entire business on Extol's supply chain software was submitted mid-way though this conversation, so the initial deletes have been addressed as well.   It appears to have passed all the WP:CORP as all the sources are third party from respected media outlets,  Inc Magazine has rated it in the top 500 fastest growing companies in the United States, which by itself makes the company notable as per WP:CORP nevermind the fact that Forbes and BusinessWeek felt it worthwhile to profile the company, the only major outlet that has not profiled the company that has a significant presence in the business world is Wikipedia.
 * Keep Enough real sources to pass, but the article should be rewritten to highlight the true notability.DGG (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've never heard of them, but there are several cites to good sources, including electronic publications and the Philadelphia Inquirer.  That's enough for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (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.