Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free-floating carsharing

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Free-floating carsharing}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free-floating_carsharing Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Free-floating carsharing}})

I do not think this is a sufficiently notable cariation on car-sharing to justify a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Carsharing. It probably merits a sentence in the models section of that article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

::Striking !vote for now. I'm still not seeing evidence of this being a notable term on its own merits. Could help if those suggested keep provide asource or two as an example of the high quality coverage they're seeing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

:::{{re|Barkeep49}} A selection of article in peer-reviewed journals from the last six months alone:

:::*{{doi-inline|10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.02.004|"The impact of free-floating carsharing on car ownership: Early-stage findings from London"}}

:::*{{doi-inline|10.1016/j.retrec.2019.01.005|"Free-floating carsharing and extemporaneous public transit substitution"}}

:::*{{doi-inline|10.1016/j.trc.2019.02.019|"Traveller preferences for free-floating carsharing vehicle allocation mechanisms"}}

:::I've got over 110 hits on a simple title search alone for peer-reviewed articles. A couple from 2012 and 2013 but coverage begins in earnest in 2015. I must comment it's very odd that I only get half a dozen news database hits, but I don't see that as being a problem when there are higher-quality sources in their multitudes. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

::::Thanks. That matches up with what I found. While I originally !voted redirect, merge probably better encapsulates my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Google scholar returns around 100 articles on this exact topic, so there’s no doubt that there is a substantial body of knowledge about it which the present article hardly does justice to. Mccapra (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Mccapra. There is a lot of detailed coverage in transportation journals and conference proceedings and discussion of how it differs from "traditional" carsharing. Passes GNG without a shadow of a doubt. Current article is not great but that's no reason to kill it. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Mccapra. There's a lot of coverage about it. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Don't see promo here. Cheerio042 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Carsharing. Yes it's notable but that doesn't mean there needs to be a separate article for it, as that article already covers some of this. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Carsharing - I concur with Reywas92 - The article subject is indeed notable however given the little information there is It'd make more sense to merge here. –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Mccapra. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to Carsharing I agree with the preceding two posters. Iamorangelightning (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've now re-read both articles and my view is still that we should keep this one. The generic Carsharing article barely touches on Free-floating carsharing. Yes we could insert the current content from Free-floating carsharing into that article but it would make it long and lop-sided. Since the notability of the topic is not in doubt and we know there is already plenty of scope for expanding the existing article, this seems like the right time to expand the content we have rather than merge it back into something more generic. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.