Talk:Peer-to-peer ridesharing

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because...

Carpooling is an old term dating back a long time, a different time when mobile and optical communication networks did not exist. Just because Ridesharing is a redir to Carpooling and not the other way around does not mean this can be deleted as it much more functionally explains the modern field. I totally abstained from adding notices into the article about how the new field obviously has young language. --Jukeboksi (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops.. was not redir but a disambig so added the article there. --Jukeboksi (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... neither allegation holds. I've tagged it more appropriately though. It's not something I'd vote to keep yet, though. -- Elvey (t•c) 23:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is mixing up concepts
I think there are some issues with this article so that concepts are blurred rather than clarified. Chilliff (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For instance, the article seems to comprise (1) Transportation network company (also titled "ridesharing company") and (2) "nonprofit peer-to-peer carpooling arrangements" under the one term "peer-to-peer ridesharing". But in the article on Transportation network company the term "peer-to-peer appears" nowhere -- and, as far as I can see, rightly so, because transportation network companies do not fall under the definition of peer-to-peer. Therefore, transportation network companies should simply be seen as a separate concept, which is not a special case of peer-to-peer ridesharing.
 * Additionally, the Talk section above refers to some claim that "[the article is] about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator". I don't find the original claim here in the Talk page, but I do see the point of this claim, also based on the above argument I made. Overall, I'm not sure if this article should even exist. For instance, there is also the article Peer-to-peer carsharing.

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Peer-to-peer ridesharing into Ridesharing company. I think that the content in the Peer-to-peer ridesharing article can easily be explained in the context of Ridesharing company, and the Ridesharing company article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Peer-to-peer ridesharing will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This proposal should have been a nonstarter, if you had read above. "transportation network companies do not fall under the definition of peer-to-peer. Therefore, transportation network companies should simply be seen as a separate concept, which is not a special case of peer-to-peer ridesharing." – wbm1058 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger to ridesharing
I propose a merger to ridesharing which would include carpooling and vehicle for hire services as this article (Peer-to-peer ridesharing) does anyway.--Darrelljon (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the current structure, with ridesharing as a disambiguation page, seems to work better, and I don't think that Vehicle for hire fits the target. Klbrain (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Vehicle for hire is a broader concept that does not always include ridesharing. _+Amiaheroyet (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated above. Leschnei (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)