Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predatory towing

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. Synergy 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory towing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article should really be a sub-section in the parking enforcement article. 'Predatory towing' is a POV title, and the article smacks of non-neutrality from the word 'go'. At the very least, it needs a damned good clean and a rename. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My Google News search came up with a source that contains the words:

• This would seem to indicate that there is a concept known as "predatory towing", and that it is defined by state lawmakers and industry experts. The second source that that search came up with (Mai Tran (2005-03-10). "Bill to Protect Motorists From Predatory Towing Clears House". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles.) seems to bear that out. Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, this one actually seems to be sourced. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Predatory towing gives me 19 hits--mostly to titles of bills, two to LA Times--in ProQuest. In Google News, it's clear that this title is used pretty extensively. The article needs cleanup, but the topic clearly passes WP:V and WP:N. I disagree with the nom about the title--"racial discrimination" is about as POV, in that it describes behaviours that governments have decided to outlaw. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are well over 100 articles listed in Google News / Archive on "predatory towing" including an article from the Miami Herald dating back to 1984. The concept is clearly notable, and the term well-supported. The reliable and verifiable sources in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Alansohn's research and reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The POV claim doesn't hold water given that this is the terminology used in law and media. I've also removed the POV tag from the article. The contents is a bit thin, but clearly references to improve it exist. VG ☎ 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Informative article, notable, and I am not sure why the title would considered POV. Emet truth (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - POV is not a reason for deletion, and the Parking enforcement officer article (to which Parking Enforcement redirects) has to do with a completely different subject. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. -- Banjeboi 00:33, 26 October 2008 (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.