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 keep. Consensus is that this is a horrible article, with horrible sourcing, and promotional tones - but one that can and should be repaired. If nobody fixes it PDQ, future AfD's would be welcome (non-admin closure) ES &L 11:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hailo[edit]

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

This appears to be another Morning277 article with clusterbombs of trivial or dubious citations to sources like Crunchbase. My guess is that someone was paid to create the article. Article's subject, however, does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for an organization. KDS4444^Talk 18:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this nomination reflects some prejudice about things unknown to me. This is an innovative growth company and most references are by reputable sources like The Telegraph, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, New York Post, etc. Martin Morin (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as by my comments made above here. Martin Morin (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional -- promotional even to the extent of G11-- and start over. The company is notable, and should have an article. Among the signals of promotional writing here are the extensive use of single-sentence paragraphs, the group portrait of the founders, the exaggeration--such as the claim it operates in NYC when when it actually is still in a beta trial there, the emphasis on the benefits and the details ( e.g. "Hailo passengers make two taps on the Hailo smartphone app in order to request and confirm their e-hail") of the service, ( advertising talks about the benefits to the users--encyclopedias talk about what the product does) the detailed description of details of funding, the use of the company name or its key trade name at every possible opportunity. Of course if the article is kept these can be fixed, but it would require fundamental rewriting. We should not reward this type of writing by keeping the material in the edit history and doing ourselves the necessary work the ed. should have known enough to do before coming here with an apparent coi--the only other article the ed worked on substantially is Zoosk, about which similar strictures hold, tho, again, it is notable. ). (The ed. has not yet been blocked, tho I think the socking reasonably clear). MM is a good clearly independent editor interested in the subject, if he';d like to rewrite the article after it's deleted. 19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
Keep -- Yes, it is rather too much of an ADVERT. However a company with $50M invested is not insignificant, i.e. notable. If notable, we should have an article. Tag - perhaps; delete - no. A bad article should be imporved not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to remove advertising language. aycliffe ^talk 21:22, 19 September 2013 (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.