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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visibly[edit]

Visibly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I need to think about this one more, but am inclined to keep. There has been significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources (over a number of years even). But it's all because of lawsuits, both by them and against them, and FDA regulation. Example of coverage: BuzzFeed News. There has been a smattering of other coverage of its service like from this NYT blog in addition to lots of Chicago Tribune coverage the best of which is [1], [2], and [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: doesn't coverage because of lawsuits count as coverage? If the lawsuit is what brings the company the attention of the press and results in news articles being published about the company in relation to the lawsuit, isn't that coverage? If the sources discussing lawsuits are not to be counted here, then it looks like the original deletion nomination should maybe have been made per WP:ILLCON and not WP:CORPDEPTH overall, but then I don't think the lawsuit-related sources are suggesting that the company has been acting illegally (which is what that standard is poised to address), only that it has been legally banned from offering its services in certain US states. Visibly isn't in the news because of illegal activity (to my knowledge). Let me also be clear: I have no WP:COI here in creating this article— I do, however, have poor eyesight (!) and was doing research on vision tests when I came across Visibly and thought, "Hey, this may warrant an article," and then found sources, and then wrote it up using those sources— nothing more nor less. Just to be clear! A loose necktie (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2019 (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.