Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asphyxiation technique


 * 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 of the debate was MERGEto Asphyxia apparently. This seems to have stood for now, so it can be dealt with editorially since there's evidently not much desire for actual deletion. -Splash talk 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Asphyxiation technique
What's this, a how-to manual for murder? No objection to all the information being available somewhere on WP, but when it's organized in this way I think we're on thin ice. --Trovatore 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but I lean towards keep. I would go into more detail on my reasoning, but I see that there's a major edit tag right now, so I'll wait to see what changes before bothering. Tuf-Kat 01:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, seems a little more CSI oriented than Godfather. The forensic link seems to support that.  Squicky, but I'd also wait on the "major edit".  Kuru   talk  02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Asphyxia: Morbid, but encyclopedic, as long as it doesn't turn into a how-to. Peter Grey 07:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, as per Peter Grey's comments. --moof 08:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who started the asphyxiation techniques article to create a unified structure for various methods and terms used in forensics, combat sports, in military application. After some research i've however discovered that several methods such as strangulation are not pure asphyxiation techniques, and i'll create separate articles for these. I agree that it would be pertinent to merge it into the article on asphyxia, and i'll do it myself. ---Marcus- 16:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So my issue is with the term "methods" and similar terms that imply intent. If the article were about ways in which people get asphyxiated, no problem. When it's about how to asphyxiate people, it seems kind of iffy. Could you remove all references to "method" and "technique" and suchlike? --Trovatore 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No methods are descibed in detail. However this is an encyclopedia, and no topic should be too "iffy" to be covered. Asphyxiation is a major component of chemical warfare and other forms of violence. You can see the full list here. ---Marcus- 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My objection is not to describing them in detail, but to calling them "methods". --Trovatore 18:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging complete. There seems to be a lack of words to replace "method" and "technique". Accidental strangleholds are rare, and they are definitely(and primarily) "methods" and "techniqes" for asphyxiating a person. ---Marcus- 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing links there; improbable search term. -- Krash (Talk) 18:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's been merged and redirected during the AFD. Please don't do this. Wait for consensus. Stifle 11:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone wants to short circuit debate, do a close otherwise it looks like we've been stifled (as per Stifle) Carlossuarez46 18:46, 2 March 2006 (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.