Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse curve


 * 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. Consensus that notability can be met. Discussions for merging into a more suitable broader topic can be held in the normal fashion. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverse curve

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I propose that the article "Reverse curve" be deleted for the following two reasons: 1. The subject is not notable; and 2. Inadequate referencing. The only reference on the page only tangentially mentions the subject of the article. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes WP:GNG as there are plenty of sources that cover this topic. I've updated the citations in the article. It would probably be better if there was an article on Railway curves or Curve (transportation) that this topic could be merged into though. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, already two sources added since the nomination. Though per above I'd also support a merge into a suitable article provided that article isn't too crowded already. NemesisAT (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:JJK2000, your deletion nomination is inadequate without wp:BEFORE being addressed. "Inadequate referencing" is simply not a valid deletion reason.  If you find referencing poor, tag the article, or add references.  There is no requirement that an article have any references at all;  it is enough that references exist somewhere.  "The subject is not notable" begs the question:  why do you think the subject is not notable?  Have you looked into the topic?  Or do you just not like the current state of the article?  These criticisms apply to other nominations by this editor, which should perhaps all be closed speedy keep with admonition to the editor. --Doncram (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Doncram: According to What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Since it is not possible to write much more than a definition of a reverse curve, the page reverse curve should be deleted. And no, all of my deletion nominations should be looked at on their own merits, instead of dismissing them based on the user who nominated them. You may even notice that quite a few people agree with my nominations. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed JJK2000's comment here to start with "Comment" rather than "Delete"; your !vote to "Delete" is implicit in your nomination of the article for deletion, and in a minor way it can seem confusing to other AFD participants that another "Delete" voter has shown up.  Also, in a minor way it gums up the usefulness of wp:AFDSTATS reporting (so AFDSTATS report on JJK2000 fails to show this AFD as one that you nominated).  So please accept this minor edit to what you wrote.
 * According to that report, your entire AFD participation history is 8 articles that you have nominated, and none of which has yielded a "delete" decision yet (there was one "Keep" and no others are closed yet). Perhaps you have other experience under a different username or not logged in.  But, User:JJK2000, sure, I agree that not all of a person's contributions should be dismissed blithely;  specific review is necessary.  I had seen and was referring to your AFD nomination for Articles for deletion/Over-track train station (2nd nomination), where your reasons are " reasons: 1. The subject is not notable; and 2. Inadequate referencing. The only reference on the page is not about the subject at all", which rubbed me the wrong way as here.  If you don't like the referencing, tag the article or add referencing; that is not a reason to delete an article.  And now I also see Articles for deletion/Chuchle battle, where your nomination in its entirety is "Unreferenced and unnotable. Kind regards, JJK2000" and where response from an AFD participant is "Nom seems not to have troubled with a BEFORE. Rotten little stub but AFD =/= cleanup."  I don't see where "quite a few people agree with my nominations".  I do think, based on sample of 3 nominations reviewed, that you need to support your statements, and you need to perform wp:BEFORE and explain how you have done so.  Sorry to AFD participants that I have gone off-track with respect to this AFD;  for anything further along these lines i may comment at User talk:JJK2000 or would welcome discussion at my Talk page.


 * About this specific Reverse curve article, I disagree that "it is not possible to write much more than a definition of a reverse curve". My consulting the first sources suggested by Google (https://mathalino.com/reviewer/surveying-and-transportation-engineering/compound-and-reversed-simple-curves, https://engineer-educators.com/lessons/reverse-curves/, https://www.iowadot.gov/design/dmanual/02d-01.pdf and maybe another one or two), leads me to understand that a reverse curve is kind of simplistic.  It is strictly defined as a horizontal double curve comprised of two sections of circles.  And while specifications/instructions are given in how an Iowa department of transportation engineer or other road or railroad designer can make calculations to implement a reverse curve in a given setting, it is conveyed that reverse curves "don't work well" for drivers/persons/vehicles moving at decent speed.  Because it involves a jarring-like switch of momentum:  consider a motorcycle leaning one way around a circular curve, then instantaneously having to switch to lean the opposite way as the reverse curve tangent is hit and a different circular curve proceeds forward.  So in railroad design there will be an issue of undue force applied to the tracks.  In road design and otherwise, it is better to use sections of non-circular curve  to avoid the too-abrupt change.  However it is noted that in park pathway design and other slow-speed applications, that reverse curves can be pleasing to the eye and worth implementing.
 * The article can/should be developed more to cover the issues with strict application of reverse curves in various settings, and alternatives. It could possibly be expanded and have its title changed to be about the multiple alternatives, not just reverse curves, and/or it could possibly be merged into such a design/engineering type article if one is already existing.  But such developments are not for this AFD.  I believe "Keep", with encouragement to editors to continue developing the article, because there is in fact lots to say about the topic, is the right decision. --Doncram (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Further on design considerations, there are vertical as well as horizontal reverse curves, and vertical ones in road design settings can have a "sight-hidden dip" issue where a car coming towards you is hidden temporarily as you come over the crest of a hill... I am familiar with one specific avenue in a U.S. city where that is a surprising and alarming possibility.  The article "Design Considerations for Highway Reverse Curves" (1991? or later) in journal Transportation Research Record goes into that and other sight distance-related calculations and design issues. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.