Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higher Visibility

:{{la|Higher Visibility}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Higher_Visibility Stats])

:({{Find sources|Higher Visibility}})

I don't see sources which meet our corporate notability guideline, in particular in view of WP:CORPDEPTH. I see passing mentions, a few of the articles don't mention the article at all, and so on. Additional sources welcomed, as always. Was likely originally an AfC draft as Draft:Higher Visibility. j⚛e decker^talk 20:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 00:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete: After review this page offers no real sign of notability, and upon a search of the net I see no other way to support it. 201.140.183.21 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable as a company or website thereof. Sounds like an advertisement. 154.122.136.222 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - Article passes WP:CORPDEPTH, as its received coverage in around 8-10 independent sources, including the Huffington Post and also Business 2 Community. 209.236.85.134 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete: The HuffPo piece doesn't even mention the subject at all, and all the other links are PR puffery and articles written by Higher Visibility personnel. There's simply nothing there on which to base an encyclopedia article that meets WP's standards. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. IP who voted keep, citing the spurious HuffPo source, has 0 other edits (but of course could be dynip). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:30, 15 June 2014 (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.