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. There is significant coverage in the Guardian and Newsday, so it comes down to WP:ORGIND. This is ultimately a subjective criterion, and the broad consensus here is that the sources are indeed independent. It may be advisable to start a WP:RM to move it to J. T. Allum and Company or similar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JTA Supermarkets[edit]

JTA Supermarkets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company announcements or information provided by the company or announcements or interviews, etc. We don't doubt the existence of the company, only whether it meets our requirements for establishing notability. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging previous participants Megtetg34, Jayron32, Cullen328 HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The solution to a poorly referenced article about a notable business is to improve the referencing and rewrite the article. Deletion is not the answer. Quite easily, I found this article with four paragraphs about the history of the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This topic, albeit largely written by its own employees, is notable. In addition to the first AFD of this topic, the big discussion for this topic and its founder can be found here. Ultimately, I withdrew both noms based on the feedback from admins/editors. Both articles just need to be re-written and cleaned up. Megtetg34 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Hi Megtetg34, the requirements for different topics vary. [WP:BIO]] applies for people and it is a very very easy standard to hit. WP:NCORP applies for companies/organizations. You withdrew both noms but unless/until we can find "multiple" sources that meet NCORP to establish notability, no amount of rewriting or cleaning will fix it. I suggest below, as an alternative to deletion, to redirect this topic to Carlton K. Mack. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable supermarket with indepth coverage in reputable sources. As also Cullen328 pointed out The solution to a poorly referenced article about a notable business is to improve the referencing and rewrite the article. Deletion is not the answer. Has enough sources to be kept. Riteboke (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Just to emphasise, we're not looking for references to prove the existence of the topic company, but references that fulfill the criteria for establishing notability. Two editors above describe the company as "notable" yet neither have managed to point to references which meet NCORP requirements. Therefore the topic is not notable. Cullen328 points to this T&TG article as a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notabilty but if fails to provide in-depth information *on the company* and fails CORPDEPTH (it is PR with no identifiable journalist hyping the grand opening the previous week). It has been described as "4 paragraphs about the history of the company" - that is simply untrue. There are two sentences which say the following:

JTA Supermarkets is managed and led by one of the oldest business groups in the country and has a very long history in serving local communities. From as far back as the 1930's, the JTA team has successfully managed though the turbulent Second World War, then through the many booms and recessions that followed, yet it has continued to grow from strength to strength.

The above fails CORPDEPTH and judging from the peacock language and lack of an identifiable journalist, I suspect also fails ORGIND. The solution to a poorly written article on a non-notable topic is deletion but that said, as an alternative to deletion it makes sense to Redirect this topic to Carlton K. Mack. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: The Guardian is a top-tier national newspaper, and substantial coverage is substantial coverage, even if the journalist who wrote the story relied too much on clichés. We aren't supposed to be media critics. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I noted the last time I voted, the sources seem adequate to me. They are published in reliable, independent newspapers, journals, etc. and are of sufficient depth to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron32 11:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong guideline, GNG is irrelevant here. We require references that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, you don't get bonus points for responding to every single vote. We already know that you believe the article should be deleted. You don't get more weight added to your vote merely because you badger everyone with a different opinion of you. Also, WP:GNG is the only relevant page; subjects that pass GNG don't need to pass additional hurdles to be acceptable as articles. --Jayron32 13:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Guardian, the Express and Newsday are all well-established national newspapers, so substantial coverage in them passes the GNG. Subject-specific guidelines are meant for cases where the GNG isn't met. Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Response There appears to be a lot of confusion among some editors above on whether GNG is applicable for establishing notability of a company/organization topic and some are disagreeing when I say GNG is irrelevant (for those purposes). Please see WP:SNG which is the result of a recent RfC. Note the following (emphasis added): SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines "and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies." For those Keep !voters who believe that references exist, post them below so we can examine them against NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read WP:ORGIND. I'm sure we all have. A. It doesn't apply here (it's talking about trade publications and PR, not national newspapers of record), and B. it's still subsidiary to the GNG (it's about helping people understand the difference between a trade publication or PR mill and an actual reliable source). If you want to deprecate all of the major newspapers in Trinidad and Tobago, please take it to WP:RSN. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ORGIND requires "Independent Content" and says "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." Nothing to do with the type of quality of the publication. The aim is to ensure that what is written about the company isn't originating from the company itself or "connected" sources. Also, I've posted a link to the RfC and to the relevant paragraph in WP:N which shows that GNG is not primary over NCORP. Tell you what - I'll post this question on WP:N Talk page and lets see what others say. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on coverage in the Guardian, the Express, and arguments already posted. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Keep as more than 75% of the content has been copied straight from the company's website where there is no indication of it having been published under a compatible license. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion is not a valid cleanup option. The copyvio text can be removed, but the sources still exist that establish this topic as a worthwhile subject for an article. --Jayron32 14:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jayron32: I tagged the copyvios earlier, and they have since been removed, but given that what is left is so poor I believe WP:G12 would have been better in hindsight. The opening of a supermarket branch is routine coverage. 'Supermarket employee assists disabled man' doesn't make the supermarket they work in worthy of an encyclopedia article. What is left neither meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and is just a G11-worthy promo piece. Perhaps other sources exist, but I am going on the sources used in the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I feel that the sources in the article AND the ones noted above are sufficient to meet minimum requirements, but you're free to believe that they don't. --Jayron32 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed !vote to keep after Guettarda's rescue work. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Since when is five of anything, notable on Wikipedia, particularly a number of supermarkets. 500 hundred possibly. Looking about, an editor has stated above Guardian, the Express and Newsday are all well-established national newspapers. Good, but where are the sources? There are two sources in the article at the Trinidad Guardian. The first one looks like a press release, a routine announcement of work, with no analysis. The 2nd one 100 jobs with new JTA supermarket at C3 Centre is an interview with the company director. How is it independent? It fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Where is the sources from the Express and Newsday???? Certainly, a place that opened in 1943 should be notable, but where is the coverage? 2 or 3 independent sources would be ideal but at the moment it fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  One source from the Guardian that was in the article until recently strikes me as significant, independent, reliable and secondary. Newsday reports on the same event. A second one that also strikes me as all these three. This mention, from the Express, while just passing, is a comment that goes to notability from an independent, reliable source: the supermarket and land development empire known today under the JT Allum brand. Combine that with the extensive coverage in the Chamber of Commerce bio of Mack, and Parris' description of "Allum's Supermarkets, the foremost supermarket chain in the southern section of Trinidad". Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - working on expanding the history and looking at the sources that are easily available, I think it would probably make more sense to move this to J. T. Allum and Company since that's both the parent company of JTA Supermarkets, and the developer of Carlton Centre, Cross Crossing Shopping Centre and the new C3 Centre. Except for a decade or so when McAL managed the supermarket side of things, the supermarket and property development businesses have been deeply intertwined. (If memory serves me, the Mack family were one of the largest shareholders in McAL until it was taken over by ANSA in 1987 to form the current ANSA McAL.) Guettarda (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.