Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Church

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 delete all except Suja Juice (no consensus}. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Church

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reason Ohc ^¡digame! 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Along with related articles Tabjuice and Suja Juice, this seems to be a walled garden of spam for two products of doubtful notability and a person who fronts the products. The biography is thinly-sourced, and relies mainly on self-referenced links (or links for a company whose WP article was deleted as spam on 22 October 2011); a GSearch for the products themselves seem to lead to product placement blog articles that recommend the products in glowing terms; citations for Suja Juice seems to suggest that its notability may be limited to the stake taken in it by the Coca Cola Company. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suja Juice, ~~possibly merge the other two articles with it~~. While the Suja Juice article does seem to have some WP:POV issues, I have found multiple news articles about the company with sigcov in independent reliable sources. I added those articles to the Suja Juice talk page. Bait30 ^Talk? 23:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my merge !vote to neutral for Tabjuice and Jeff Church as Adamant1 raised the valid point that they're only tangentially connected. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey Bait30 are you sure that the articles on Suja Juice are good? You say you've found multiple sigcov in independent reliable sources, but is the content "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND? Which articles have you in mind that meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HighKing: The sources I'm referring to are in the article's talk page. I was aware of WP:ORGIND when I found those articles. In my opinion those articles pass WP:ORGIND. Bait30 ^Talk? 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jeff Church and Tabjuice. Keep Suja Juice article. As it now seems to have a few more reliable sources. One the other articles and why I'm not going with merging them to the Suja Juice article, none of the other founders of Suja Juice have their own sections or mentions in the article. So doing so for Jeff Church would give him undue weight. With Tabjuice, there doesn't seem to be any connection between the two companies except that they where both founded by Jeff Church. Which isn't notable on it's own in the Suja Juice article. Otherwise, it's just notability by association or inherited. Especially considering Tabjuice isn't notable on it's own. Really, the same goes for Jeff Church. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suja Juice; passes WP:GNG. DeleteTabjuice and Jeff Church; fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note to the discussion closer that HighKing's comment above was added after the AfD was relisted. Bait30 ^Talk? 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All three look like non-notable spam. Dorama285 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are inferior and promotional. Abhi88iisc (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corporate spam. Not a single source has been produced or can be found that meets the criteria for establishing notability for either Suja Juice or Tabjuice. The Forbes "article" is a simple listing/summary of the company with no attributed author. The other sources are entirely based on press releases or other announcements. Topics both fail WP:ORGIND. I don't believe the Jeff Church article meets our guidelines for notability either and should also be deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:49, 8 March 2020 (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.