Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bavis Fabacraft


 * 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 Draftify. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Bavis Fabacraft

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. The current sources in the article are a legal document the homepage of the website, a trade publication piece that's largely an interview with a Bavis employee, a labeled press release, and a second trade publication. Since WP:ORGIND indicates that trade publication pieces are generally not independent, the sourcing in the article fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot find additional coverage indicating that would satisfy NCORP, so I suggest that the page be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm an apprentice in Engineering in Ohio and Bavis is one of the largest providers of drive-thru technology in the state rivaling Diebold Nixdorf, with clients mostly at Walgreens and Chase, which I think for a 60-year-old company does warrant an article. I do have to concede that for the love of my life I cannot find good sources on this because Bavis is a private company in a niche trade, and Bavis and Fabacraft were two different companies before a merger. However, the articles although from the customers' trade magazines are from widely varying trades with enough notability to a large audience that I believe pass WP:NCORP, if admittedly barely. This articlefrom the Cincinnati Business Courier is one of the major business sources that I think can be admitted. Moreover, and this is a major argument, the company's main product trademark, the Vittleveyors, is a well-known product with major public coverage dating back to the 90s (trademark information). This article from The New York Times, along with this article and this article and are completely independent. I can make the case of creating an article for the Vittleveyors and linking Bavis as the producer. This is my first time creating an article so apologies for any confusion, but I believe the article should stay for now. Do let me know how I can expand this article to need guidelines. Quangson306 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep thru Drafity. The first is from a source that the reliable sources discussions previously reached consensus was good, but it's a primary source mostly (i.e. not a secondary source, which is better).
 * However I found this: Levy, Sandra. "Supermarkets Stay Ahead: Supermarket operators turn to high-tech solutions to ensure patients stay adherent and healthy." Drug Store News, vol. 42, no. 5, May 2020, pp. 52+. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A629603180/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=ae6a0556. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022.
 * It's called them "Bavis Drive-Thru" ad mentioned them five times, going into details about leadership
 * Likewise (same source, same author) Levy, Sandra. "Problem Solvers: Technology, automation aim to improve efficiency and enable clinical efforts." Drug Store News, vol. 42, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 80+. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A617763851/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=8cf459a2. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022.
 * ALso mentioned them borderline briefly, and with a quote.
 * I couldn't open the NYT article, would be happy to hear what it includes.
 * It seems the company is borderline notable, but their produce the Vittleveyor seems more clearly notable.
 * I could be persuaded in either direction depending what the NYT article says and what other people think, but I currently suggest this article be moved back into draft (draftify) and be changed into an article about Vittleveyors, that would then have a section about the company that makes them. CT55555 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.