Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton K. Mack


 * 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The result was Speedy keep: looks to be withdrawn by nominator but not properly closed, and no support for deletion (non-admin closure) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlton K. Mack

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No valid sources, no coverage to establish notability of any sort. Promotional page and nothing more. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Per the constructive and fair feedback of editors. Withdraw Megtetg34 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Nationally significant figure. Easily passes the GNG. He was a pioneer of the grocery business in Trinidad and Tobago and a leader of the Chinese community. Built the first shopping mall, which bore his name: JT Allum company pioneered the first concept of a mall in San Fernando when they built Carlton Centre in 1965. Was profiled by Fr. Look Lai in his book (which was published by an academic press). Inducted into the Business Hall of Fame by the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Industry and Commerce. (Profile linked from that page ). Per WP:BEFORE you should really take a moment to search for people before AFDing them. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I respectfully disagree with you. He may be known in his community, but the businesses he founded weren't publicly traded and I don't see enough coverage to pass GNG, or pass WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, i.e.: Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company . It looks like you edited the article some time ago. If you have more sources, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A person profiled in an academic work published by a scholarly press among other sources easily passes the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm still in disagreement with you, and my view is based on Wikipedia policy and nothing else. The fact that the book was published by the University of the West Indies doesn't make the book notable on those grounds alone per WP:BOOKCRIT. Second, the book is not about the topic. The topic is mentioned here and there. I'm going to stand by my above comment. Simply generalizing that the topic is notable and stating that there are other sources is not enough for me to consider this topic, or any topic for that matter, as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs)
 * The source doesn't have to meet the notability guideline, it has to meet the reliable sources guideline. It's a well-regarded academic press, which meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The source also doesn't have to be about the subject, it simply has to give substantial coverage.
 * As for other sources: as I mentioned, the Chamber of Commerce induction (see also this article about it). article mentions him as a recipient of the Hummingbird Medal, Gold, the nation's third-highest award. These are news stories in the past few years mentioning a man who died a quarter century ago. I'm only relying on what I can find with a quick search online. While I'd love to improve Mack's bio some day, I don't currently have the time. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok. Well, if you decide that you have the time, it would be germane to the discussion to provide additional sources instead of just arguing how important it is to you to strongly keep it. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The article on JTA Supermarkets has this subject, Mr. Mack as a significant portion of that article. However, there is obviously more to JTA Supermarkets than Mr. Mack, and Mr. Mack's business appears to have a lengthy history before it expanded into JTA.  The main JTA article appears to be written as if someone were able to look up Mr. Mack's article.  I am not making an OTHERSTUFF argument, I am merely pointing out that if we take as given that JTA is notable and has its own article, it seems to make more sense to have a separate article on Mr. Mack and link to it from that page rather than merging them. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Frankly, I don't think that topic is notable either and thought about AFD'ing JTA Supermarkets next. Almost none of that page is verifiably sourced, and the editor that created that page, John Thomas at JTA Supermarkets, works at JTA Supermarkets as their social media specialist. Evidence of that is the editor's username and the declaration on the user's talk page, have a look. Not much else found to warrant that as a standalone page either. I certainly can't consider that as a basis to give Carlton K. Mack his own page. Megtetg34 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They seem reasonably notable, are there other large supermarkets in Trinidad and Tobago? There seems to be sufficient coverage listed.  You mentioned above that because notability isn't inherited, a businessperson's article might need to be merged into the article on their business.  But now you've nominated JTA for deletion as well, so merging seems somewhat disingenuous. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. After reviewing the article, and the pattern of editing, my view has changed on merging so I nominated it for AFD as well. I still don't think either topic is notable enough though so I'm leaving the AFD for other's to vote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources provided by Guettarda easily mean the subject passes WP:GNG. The article is very stubby, but at any point someone could use those sources to expand the article.  -- Jayron 32 18:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources in the article and in this discussion are adequate to demonstrate notability. The nominator's assertion that a book published by an academic press must itself be notable in order to establish notability of a person discussed in the book is, to be charitable, incorrect. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:30, 13 April 2021 (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.