Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo vehicle

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo vehicle[edit]

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

This article defines a term, gives examples, and cites usage. This should be a dictionary entry not an article. The article doesn't define a category of vehicle. It defines a marketing term describing the way a car company promotes an exceptional vehicle to improve the image of its entire line. The type of "halo vehicle" depends on the marketing aims and differs with each use. Again, I think it should be a dictionary entry. VegetativePup (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This crosses the fine line between a subjective category of cars and a pure marketing term, even if most of the car categories are little more than marketing terms.Mighty Antar (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —swa q 17:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Far too much of a niche word and not a term people would be searching for, leave it for car magazines to discuss. In fact, the article even says it's a marketing term and there isn't exactly a lot of info. List of the cars are entirely subjective by the editor and has no source (Peacocking), and this is most certainly not a "Car classification". Everything here is covered in Supercar, Concept Car and Flagship... these are already separated for a reason and there's no "special" car that wouldn't fit into one of the three. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge: I support the deletion. The nomination is pretty much spot-on. However, I also think it should also be merged as a sub-heading into the flagship#Automotive article, because "halo vehicle" does seem to have some standing as a term in North America (and whilst we shouldn't have actual articles for 'marketing terms', they should where possible be included into existing more notable articles). 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (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.