Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Aviation Special Interest Group (AVSIG)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Aviation Special Interest Group (AVSIG)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only claim to notability ("oldest continuously-operated online forum") is clearly not true, and the only sources is a user-editable 'pedia. All other sources fail the WP:RS test as well. Original article created by WP:COI editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Noted aviation forum. Have added four sources which I think are reliable and I think lend support to the possibility that their claim to being "oldest continuously-operated online forum" is true. Rewrote to indicate that it is their claim. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete one of many hundreds of aviation forums with hardly any of note, I have never heard of this one so in my opinion it fails to meet the ..well known aviation message forum. mentioned in the article lead. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Milborne, AVSIG was famous in the aviation community. Because Compuserve had its own telephone network (the internet was at that time for defense and some defense related universities - hardly anyone, but maybe Al Gore, knew about it) airline paid for contracts for their pilots, so they could log on and check their schedules and update information on their aircraft before their paper logs were in. There were older forums, like the on for Kaypro users in NYC I think titled PROFILES (it folded in 1984 I think - we are discussing continuous), but it was crude, slow and you had to use standard telephone connections$$$$$ AVSIG with Compuserve established the GOLD STANDARD for forums copied by about everyone, including the famous Georgia Griffin, who although blind, was hired by Compuserve and took the AVSIG model and established forums on about every subject, propelling Compuserve from a nitch for taxes prepares to ask for advise on pesty tax returns and legal issues to forum for professionals then the general public.  Georia Griffin and the forum were so famous, that Readers Digest (then a big deal) did an article on her and the forums. I was worked for Compuserve starting in 1985 to 2003 as everything from Section Leader to Sysop (I got free access and free to all forums and sections/databases) and everyone on Compuserve and what other specialty non-Compuserve forums and computer magazines knew of AVSIG and wanted to be like them. (Note> I am a member of AVSIG - I use it to track down sources on little known aviation subjects)--Jackehammond (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability. A discussion forum surely cannot meet notability guidelines unless a discussion on it DIRECTLY resulted in changes in Law, Procedures or some other fundamental criterion. Proving such a thing would be near impossible, so it is unlikely that an internet forum will ever rate a stand-alone article. At best an entry in a List of aviation fora or something similar!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why would a disussion forum need to have directly impacted laws or procedures? They need only meet WP:GNG.  As for the unlikelihood of internet fora rating a standalone article, unlikely does not mean impossible as evidenced by our list of Internet forums. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * NOTE AVSIG exited before it transferred to a computer forum. It was an organization dedicated General Aviation (private aircraft) on safety issues. AVSIG is so well known in the aviation community, if you talked to pilot and ask if he/she heard of AVSIG and they said no, it would be like a Marine saying they never heard of Parris Island, SC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackehammond (talk • contribs)


 * Weak Keep - It may be difficult to defintively verify that AVSIG is the oldest such forum, but there is verifiabily part of Compuserve's forums way back in the day. Sources added to the article show coverage in book soruces about the forum.  I also found  and . Not the best of sourcing to establish notability, but sufficient to clear the bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The sources added by Msrasnw and the ones found by Whpq seem just about adequate for notability, and there are several more of similar strength that show up fairly quickly in online searches. However, AVSIG's most notable period was fairly clearly pre-Web (even if one doubts their claim to be the oldest surviving online forum, they are veriably one of the very early ones), and a number of the better potential sources are likely not to be online. PWilkinson (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment with another possibly useful extra source: Would a source from a European Pariliament published report (quoting a Guisnel J 1995 Des langages pour analyser la poussière d'info, Libération. 9 juin) in which the infomration discussed on internet newsgroups (and especially in AVSIG forum, supported by Compuserve) was quoted as being of vital significance to the understanding of the loss of American Eagle Flight 4184 . (The source is here:Bogolikos-Zeus, Nikos (1999) The perception of economic risks arising from the potential vulnerability of electronic commercial media to interception The STOA Programme, Directorate General for Research: Directorate A, European Parliament, Luxembourg, October PE 168.184/Vol 5/5.) (Msrasnw (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Keep The question of whether Avsig discussions resulted in changes in law, procedures, etc. was raised above. It's not easy to document the forum's early influence on FAA policy and on the aviation community in general, but when I joined the forum in the 1990s, there were two FAA Headquarters officials who were members and regular participants: Tony Broderick was Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, and Rick Cremer was with the FAA's Flight Standards Service.
 * http://www.spoke.com/people/broderick-anthony-3e1429c09e597c10082139df


 * http://www.avweb.com/news/atis/184422-1.html


 * http://www.avweb.com/news/profiles/182916-1.html


 * It's hard to imagine high FAA Headquarters officials participating in the forum for a number of years without its having an effect on FAA policy. In particular, the last link above details three specific examples of this while the forum was on Compuserve:


 * There were two inspectors doing ramp checks at an air show in California. They were looking for registrations and airworthiness certificates on airplanes parked on the ramp, and what got me involved is when they checked a warbird that had no flight manual, and the inspector insisted that it had to have a flight manual. I think maybe John Deakin was the one who posted the question. I got the note and went down the hall and talked to some people about the inspector's handbook. I also talked to the FSDO where this had happened, and as a result, a few months later the inspectors were told not to do ramp checks during airshows. That's one issue that started and ended on CompuServe.


 * The issue of safety pilots logging PIC time came up online. I walked that down the hall, too, and got an interpretation that because a safety pilot is a required crew member when someone is under the hood, both the safety pilot and the person under the hood can log PIC time. A couple of times pilots had been told at local FSDO safety meetings that only one person could log PIC time, so we straightened that out.


 * The ticket program got a lot of discussion online. I took some of those messages to the folks in charge of the program and, as a result, the program was stopped and reviewed.


 * Of those three examples, the revised policies in the first two are still in existence to this day. (Note: At the link, it's clear from the context that the mention of Compuserve is in reference to Avsig.) --Palmpilot900 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Another example of the influence of Avsig on aviation can be found in the article's second external link, which leads to an article in the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine (linked again below for convenience).


 * http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/church.html


 * Beginning on page 2, the Smithsonian article describes the role that Avsig played in developing technology to enable piston aircraft engines to operate more efficiently. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Further on the subject of notability, the technology mentioned above has been widely discussed in the aviation press, including Avweb, AOPA Pilot, Flying Magazine, and others. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It was mentioned on another page that some might have questions about the reliability of the sources I cited above. I have no idea of the credentials of spoke.com, but Tony Broderick's tenure at the FAA is a matter of public record and therefore verifiable if anyone chooses to question it. As for Avweb, that is a respected online aviation news source. A wikipedia search shows that it is cited hundreds of times in various Wikipedia aviation articles. And I will be very surprised if anyone claims that the Smithsonian's Air and Space magazine is not a reliable source on aviation topics. --Palmpilot900 (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, appears to squeak past the GNG - barely, but that's enough. Pete's rationaile in his delete !vote is misguided; while those are things that can help notability, if it passes the GNG, it passes the GNG - which this appears to do. Should be renamed to Aviation Special Interest Group if kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 22 February 2013 (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.