Talk:Predatory towing

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Neutral Point of View

I'm not a huge fan of the language in this article. It's certainly not neutral. You can't state that predatory towing is unfair, because that's an unsubstantiated opinion. As a parking monitor, I could list myriad reasons that this kind of towing is fair, legal, and necessary.209.23.159.138 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

predatory towing, by definition, is not necessary; it's acting as predator, taking advantage of the weakness of others.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Predatory towing" is term used by lawmakers (see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Predatory_towing for references). Write your congressman if you dislike it. VG ☎ 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

predatory towing is, by definition, an emotional term. It serves no useful purpose except to inflame or incite. The proper term for this article should be Non Consent Towing You will not find the term predator or predatory in any laws or regulation regarding this issue. This topic should be deleted in its entirety as it has no redeeming value SkyForum (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally agree with the sentiment of this article, I also agree that it isn't neutral at all. 98.246.162.201 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)JB[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Predatory towing/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The term "Predatory" is not properly used on this subject. It is an emotional term and serves no useful purpose. A better term would be "Non Consent Tow"

Last edited at 02:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 03:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)