Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inert gas asphyxiation


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Inert gas asphyxiation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Article fails WP:GNG. There isn't even a reference that this term is actually used by anybody but the creator of this article. The whole article has been constructed by OR, patching together material on an range of different material. there's no evidence provided that this subject is more notable than "clothing asphyxiation" or "smoke asphyxiation" or a dozen other kinds of asphyxiation. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The title and scope of the article both seem to be a reasonable and there's plenty of coverage out there such as this. The only issue I see is that there's no mention of the hazard of asphyxiation by halon fire suppression systems. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with Asphyxia - I do not agree with the accusation that the whole article is original research, but a merge seems in order. If notability is met for a standalone article, maybe rename, but do not delete. Tigraan (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - not OR in the least. Thousands of Google hits on the term apart from Wikipedia quotes, several Google Scholar uses, and currently in US national news. Dozens of pertinent sources, all very much on-topic. EllenCT (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andrew Davidson. This is an important class of asphyxia, with massive literature available. I second the need to refer to the hazard of asphyxiation by halon fire suppression systems. Inert gases like helium and nitrogen are grouped together (logically and in the literature) since their mechanism of action is the same (in contrast to say, carbon monoxide). -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The citations there now aren't remotely similar to OR.  I'd also keep it as a standalone article due to the crucial differences between it & 'regular' asphyxia, its (related) routine use in 'humane' animal slaughter, assisted suicide, and the growing push to use it for executing people in the USA.  —xyzzy 13:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see those "crucial differences", hence my 'merge' !vote. All in all, it's still oxygen lacking to the lungs. Am I missing something? Tigraan (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The differences are that the lungs are working properly (unlike compressive asphyxia), and the oxygen transport in the blood is working normally (unlike carbon monoxide poisoning), but there is no oxygen in the gas being breathed. The article doesn't fully explain it, but in inert gas asphyxiation (unlike many other forms), the victim is often completely unaware that there is a problem. -- 120.17.74.76 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The literal term need not have any currency - the term defines itself and as such, represents a free-standing subject of interest. I accessed it on a "keywords" basis, and it turned out to be quite what I was looking for. The gains from merging can be captured through cross-references. 184.33.61.97 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (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.