Crescent Electric Supply Co. – Endorse-ish, but Relist. There's good consensus here that, while the close wasn't wrong per-se, the sources presented near the end of the AfD discussion, and here, deserve another week to review. I'm going to back out the deletion and the close, and relist the existing discussion. -- RoySmith(talk)14:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hi Patar knight. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent Electric Supply Co., only one editor commented after I cited multiple sources including a 1957 profile in BusinessWeek that called Crescent Electric Supply "the midwest's largest electrical distributor". That editor did not address why the sources I provided were insufficient to establish notability. Please reconsider your close as "delete". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I think you often do good work in digging up sources and trying to rescue articles, I think I must decline to revisit the close in this case. The other !voters and the nom all indicated that they had also done a survey of the available sources and found them unconvincing. There was also nearly three days for those editors to change their minds between when you posted the sources and the AFD close. Instead, during that time, another !voter thought that the available sources were lacking. Of the five best sources that you found, only the BusinessWeek article seems to truly cover the company in-depth, and none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject. This assessment seems borne out by the state of the article. While it's certainly better than how it was before you worked on it, the material is utterly mundane, except for the stuff sourced from the BusinessWeek article. I appreciate that it's frustrating to work on an article during AfD and have it deleted, but in this case you'll have to go to DRV. Sorry, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions06:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin wrote, "The other !voters and the nom all indicated that they had also done a survey of the available sources and found them unconvincing." In their searches for sources, the AfD participants did not mention the extensive 1957 profile of Crescent Electric Supply in BusinessWeek. Had they found that profile or the other sources, I expect the participants to have mentioned them.
The closing admin wrote, "There was also nearly three days for those editors to change their minds between when you posted the sources and the AFD close." It is wrong to assume that silence from previous participants means they have reviewed the new sources and rejected them. Closing admins generally give less weight to AfD participants who have not addressed significant new information that has come to light in an AfD. The sources cannot be discounted implicitly through editors declining to discuss them.
The closing admin wrote, "another !voter thought that the available sources were lacking". That editor said the article failed WP:NCORP and was promotional. But that editor did not specifically explain how the article was promotional and why the sources I provided were insufficient to establish notability.
The closing admin wrote, "Of the five best sources that you found, only the BusinessWeek article seems to truly cover the company in-depth, and none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject." It is incorrect that aside from the BusinessWeek article, "none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject". As I noted in the AfD, there are two other sources that provide significant coverage of the company:
A 2,584-word article titled "Crescent Electric Supply Profile: Orchestrating Change". The profile was written by Jim Lucy and published in 2013 by Penton's Electrical Wholesaling article.
A 1,273-word article titled "Delivering solutions; Crescent Electric Supply uses service and knowledge to sell automation and control systems to industrial customers". The article was written by Victoria Fraza Kickham and published by Reed Business Information's Industrial Distribution.
I also disagree that "the material is utterly mundane":
Founded in 1919, Crescent Electric Supply was the biggest electrical distributor in the Midwest according to a 1957 profile in BusinessWeek.
Crescent Electric Supply became a distributor for General Electric in 1925 and in 1957 was GE's "largest independent full-line distributor".
A 2018 article in The Wall Street Journal called the company "one of the largest electrical suppliers in the U.S."
There was no opportunity to respond to the closing admin's arguments that aside from BusinessWeek "none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject" and "the material is utterly mundane" because these arguments were not made in the AfD.
Endorse- Aside from an extraordinarily long filibuster by Cunard, there were no arguments to retain the article. Plenty of other editors examined the sources and didn't find them sufficient for an article, so I agree with Patar knight that the consensus was to delete the article. ReykYO!13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Patar's close was correct. We can only judge consensus based on the opinions that are in front of us. Making assumptions about what sources were and weren't consulted by which editors, or why participants did or didn't respond to later comments, is a slippery slope. But Cunard did raise a lot of new material and relisting for another week is a reasonable request. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist. Give us several days to digest Cunards points. This is worth considering, and the points go to AfD discussion points, not close review points. Criticise the close for its excessive brevity for a contested discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist without prejudice per both Joes. The close wasn't horribly wrong per se, but there really was no engagement with the substantive analysis of Cunard; it seems reasonable to allow such engagement to occur. (Where Reyk sees a "filibuster", I see a thoughtful and comprehensive rebuttal of the arguments for deletion...which may or may not stand up to further debate but need to be engaged with!) Martinp (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strengthening to Speedy relist or at least undelete the article during the discussion here. After a day we seem to have fairly strong consensus here that Cunard found one or several significant sources, a plausible assertion of notability, and improved the article. The one !voter in the AFD after his contribution does not seem to have engaged with that. So let's cut bureaucracy and finish a reasonable evaluation. This would best be done by just relisting (as if the AFD had just been extended), or, failing that, if the proper venue to debate the merits is here, we need to see the article. Noting I struck through "horribly" above since it cast unintended aspersions - I wasn't trying to imply "wrong but not horribly". And the whole situation reminds me of Arch Coal 10+ years ago - due to COI issues, we seem to have a hard time recognizing and writing about notable companies. NCORP is fine; we just seem to have a bias to assume a not-very-good article about a company must be nonnotable, and assume there are no RS rather than looking for them!Martinp (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist While a correct reading of consensus, only one person voted delete after the keep post discussing sources and the article improvement. Three days and one additional delete comment isn't quite enough time to evaluate an improved article, and I think a relist is proper, though I would probably read consensus as a delete if no additional comments were received after a couple weeks. SportingFlyertalk06:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (own close). I stand by my close and my exchange with Cunard on my talk page. Unless there's strong evidence to the contrary, we should not throw out !votes and nominations of users that either explicitly cite a lack of independent, reliable sources or policy/guidelines that mandate such sources to exist, merely because they did not respond to another user's 10k byte post. And judging by the quality of the sources, all of which except for the BusinessWeek article (from 1957!) lack the type and depth of coverage sought in WP:CORPDEPTH or the independence required by WP:CORPIND, they were correct to do so. Since many !votes here are against my close, I'll just note that relisting would obviously be preferable to overturning to no consensus, given the !vote distribution. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for temp-undeleting, Patar Knight. I agree with you that the article, even as quickly improved by Cunard during the AFD, is still pretty basic and stubby. But it doesn't seem horribly promotional or vacuous. I've taken a quick look, and in addition to the sources already identified, it seems there is a Hoover's profile (behind a paywall for me, but usually a useful independent source for data and a brief description), a very brief Bloomberg profile, and also quite a bit of material at [1], which while wikiformatted seems to be a stable, likely unbiased/independent secondary source with additional info that could be incorporated, as well as additional sources in its reference section. So I don't think finding RS to expand would be a problem. A more relevant Q is (I think) whether the company is notable enough. The old BW claim of significance is something, but not overwhelming. According to Hoovers, annual revenue is about $1.2B, which is not small but not huge either. Not sure where/how we should be having that discussion, whether here, or at a possible (eventual) extended/relisted AFD. Martinp (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our notability guidelines rely on having significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. The presence of passing mentions in reliable sources can create a presumption that the guidelines are met, but doesn't in and of itself meet those guidelines. The only reference that seems to meet our guidelines is the excellent BusinessWeek article, but no other such sources seem to exist. The article content not sourced to the BusinessWeek piece is just acquisitions, a regional personnel change, and office/product numbers, all of which are explicitly barred from granting notability per WP:CORPDEPTH.
It's perhaps telling that of the five sources by Cunard as providing significant coverage, the two Penton sources were not even used during their revision of the page. The Wall Street Journal source is a single sentence name drop to reference the vague statement that the company "one of the largest" of its kind in the United States. And the Industrial Distribution article is only used to source that the company grew through acquisitions in the 1970s, a fact covered by only twelve words out of 1273 in the article. Given how this discussion is proceeding, I would be able to explain why any of the provided sources are insufficient in a re-opened discussion, so I won't waste more energy doing so now. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the two Penton sources were not even used during their revision of the page" – in the Wikipedia article, I included the two sentences: "Schmid had been dissatisfied with the length of time electrical manufacturers needed to deliver goods through the river from St. Louis or Minneapolis to Dubuque. He founded Crescent Electric Supply to speed up the delivery for electric contractors."
These sentences should be cited to the 2013 Penton article, not the BusinessWeek article. I copied the wrong citation over.
I could have expanded the article with more information from the sources but did not do so because I was limited on time.
Also, Cunard is blatantly misrepresenting my words by taking "utterly mundane" out of context. I said that the material cited to BusinessWeek as not mundane, but the rest of the article was. Here, Cunard is misrepresenting me as saying that the entire article is mundane and then lists three non-mundane things, two of which were cited to the BusinessWeek article, which was absolutely not my position. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken that statement from my nomination. My mistake. I apologize for taking "utterly mundane" out of context.
I’ve reviewed the sources and the article. At AfD I would/will !vote “delete”. Cunard and I have had this difference before, but my position is that he is light on “independence” of the sourcing. I find myself source by source repeatedly discounting them as independent due to things such as reliance and faithful reproduction of company information, featuring interview material, reporting company facts. I am suspicious, though not alleging, that each of the publications has financial non-independence, but for the real test what I am looking for is transformative content in the source deriving from the source’s author, as required to be a secondary source, and not appearing to originate from a conversation with the company, it’s owner or it’s spokesperson. I am not seeing that in any source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to not be finding the extensive 1957 profile of Crescent Electric Supply in BusinessWeek. Can someone help me with that? It sounds like it was the best source? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just assumed good faith that the sources does exist and based my assessment of the source as a good one on the quotations posted by Cunard at the AFD, its use as a source on the article, and that most of what it said seemed corroborated by other sources that are accessible, but seemingly less in-depth. My institution's EBSCO subscription only has BusinessWeek issues from 1996 onwards, so I assume Cunard must have found a physical copy somehow. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 1957 BusinessWeek source is available in Google Books here. It can be found through a search for the article's name ("Expanding in the Face of a Trend").
It's certainly no surprise what business Crescent Electric Supply Company is in. The company distributes more than 200,000 electrical products from 600 leading vendors, including GE Lighting, Hubbell, Siemens, and Thomas & Betts. Main products include lamps, light fixtures, switchgear, door bells, and power distribution controls. Customers include Caterpillar, Deere, and clients in the agriculture, construction, data communications, energy, government, health care, hospitality, and industrial sectors. Crescent Electric has more than 140 locations in some 25 states.
Under the "Strategy" section, the profile notes:
Crescent continues to invest in marketing and e-commerce initiatives that can extend its reach to new customers, as well as focus on markets such as government, education, and lighting retrofits for growth. It also makes strategic acquisitions to fortify its core operations and extend its geographical scope. In 2013 it opened a new location in Arizona and Montana to attract additional clients within those states.
This provides transformative analysis of the company.
Here is more information from the profile:
It was founded by Titus Schmid in 1919.
In 2012, it acquired Stoneway Electric Supply, which operated 15 branches in the Pacific Northwest, and McCullough Electric Company, which was based in the "key major metropolitan region" of Pittsburgh.
In 2013, it purchased Lake Electric Supply, which operated in Iowa, and Interstate Electric Supply, which operated in Idaho and Oregon.
Regarding the company's clients, it sells to "contractors, original equipment manufacturers, and to the maintenance, repair, and operations needs of commercial, industrial, institutional, and utility clients".
The profile lists 15 competitors. Some of those competitors are Mayer Electric. Cape Electrical Supply, W.W. Grainger, Kirby Risk, and Graybar Electric.
Hogstrom, Erik (2006-09-24). "Crescent founded in Dubuque". Telegraph Herald.
The articles does not have any quotations or interviews with the company's representatives.
The article notes:
By 1925, Crescent had been appointed a General Electric Lamp agent.
The company experienced steady growth, expanding to five locations in 1930, eight by 1940, 25 by 1970.
Crescent supplies a range of electrical contractors, from one-man shops to those capable of designing and installing multimillion-dollar systems.
Other customers include investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, industrial firms, schools, hospitals, colleges, hardware and appliance stores as well as discount stores and supermarkets.
The article also notes that the company was founded by Titus B. Schmid in 1919 in Dubuque, Illinois. The article further notes that the company's corporate office is in East Dubuque and that it has more than 120 distribution locations in 25 states including New York and Alaska.
SOMETHING is going on, in the 16 branches of Crescent Electric Supply Company which cover all of Iowa and large portions of Illinois, Wisconsin and South Dakota. It's a big increase in lighting volume, largely on the commercial side: 90% over 1951 for the first quarter of this year — the latest figures available now. This substantial increase has been a continuing trend since a separate lighting department was established in the firm in 1945, under the supervision of Lighting Engineer Carl O. Christensen. Figures reveal that in 1941, lighting was only 5.8% of Crescent's full-time volume; in 1951, despite zooming figures in other departments, lighting fixtures accounted for 7.5% of all Crescent's business, including major appliances.
The article further notes:
Crescent was founded by Titus B. Schmid, its present president, in 1919. The original house at Dubuque has grown to include a manufacturing plant and 16 branches in four states, including among other employees 76 outside salesmen and 19 city counter-salesman.
Lighting fixtures were always considred an important phase of the business by Mr. Schmid, but it was not until the establishment of a separate department that considerable advances were made. As in other full-line houses, all the salesmen sell some lighting at one time or another; but until Christensen 's advent such sales were often the result of demand or accident.
The page lists Crescent Electric Supply in 2017 as the eighth largest electrical distributor in the United States with a revenue of $1.035 billion, 1,825 employees, and 143 locations.
"A Look At the Largest". Electrical Wholesaling. Vol. 97, no. 6. Penton. 2016. p. 18. ISSN0013-4430.
The article provides summaries of some of the largest electrical distributors in 2016. Crescent Electric Supply in 2016 is listed as the tenth largest electrical distributor in the United States.
The article notes:
Crescent Electric Supply had a quiet year, news-wise, with a steady flow of new personnel making up the bulk of their announced changes. Earlier this year, the company's Elk Grove Village, Ill., branch helped supply electrical products for the renovation of Chicago's Wrigley Field, and Electrical Wholesaling's May, 2015 issue featured the story of how Crescent and Service Wire worked together to supply a custom wire order for the project. Crescent Electric Supply was also the subject of a July, 2013 cover story in Electrical Wholesaling. Another big news story over the past few years at the company was the big investment it made into e-commerce two years ago when it launched an online store at www. cesco.com that offered access to more than 200,000 products.
Endorse This was my afd nomination, and sometimes in response to my nominations Cunard succeeds in finding references that meet our standards--and I have accordingly sometimes withdrawn an afd nomination or changed my !voe to keep. . But t his is not one of those times. Taking the primary examples, the listing in Hoovers, the profile in Electric Wholesaling are magnificent examples of routine coverage--these are individual items in a series in those publications that includes every possibly significant company. That's exactly thedefinition of directory information. They are accurate directory information, but they do not show notability. Nor do they show thatthe firm is so importantthat it should necessarily be covered: they do not show it has the major market share. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG (talk·contribs), those are not the primary examples of notability. I have listed the primary examples below (including two new sources I found today).
Regarding "they do not show it has the major market share", a 1957 profile in BusinessWeek and a 1969 cover story in Iowa Business & Industry magazine say it was the largest electrical distributor in the Midwest in that era.
Sources published in the 2010s say it is the eighth largest electrical distributor in the United States today.
Crescent Electric Supply Company has fanned out over the midwest with a "localized" service concept that has boosted it to the largest distributor in this area. It took Crescent 50 years to establish 29 branch outlets and — one by one — put its inventory, services and helping-hand concept. This April the company celebrates its golden anniversary. The four sons of the founder Titus B. Schmid are shown on the cover. They are, left to right, Thomas B. Schmid, president; William T. Schmid, James A. Schmid and John Schmid. The Crescent territory now serves electrical utilities, contractors and dealers in parts of nine states. Electric supplies are its largest volume division. Major appliances are another. Household appliances are another and a growing segment is its lighting division. For a story about how a company started with a young man's idea in 1919 and blossomed out into a giant distributor, please turn to Page 24.
February 1972 cover story in McGraw-Hill's Electric Wholesaling magazine titled "Crescent's information system: The Key to Controlling 29 Branches" (link to coverInternet Archive).
24 July 2006 profile in Telegraph Herald titled "Crescent founded in Dubuque".
July 2013 cover story from Penton's Electrical Wholesaling magazine titled "Orchestrating Change: How Crescent Electric Supply is blending its proud history with 21st century sales, marketing and maanagement strategies" (link to coverInternet Archive).
The articles were published in 1957, 1969, 1972, 2006, and 2013. Crescent Electric Supply has received significant coverage in reliable sources over many decades.
