Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asphyxiant gas

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 No consensus - Yomangani^talk 23:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asphyxiant gas

under the definition given, all non-toxic gases except oxygen are asphyxiant, which makes the term fairly useless, and dooms the article to be either forever a stub or a huge, pointless list of gases Sam Clark 13:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - in its current form, it looks like a list which can obviously never be complete as per the intro dicdef. However, asphyxiant gases have medical/toxicologic importance and an article which discusses more of the effects and precautions necessary to avoid asphyxiation would actually make a valuable article. I will work on it! InvictaHOG 14:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• This is what we get when editors don't cite sources. An asphyxiant gas has a specific definition, in the worlds of medicine and safety, distinct from a respiratory irritant gas, a flammable gas, and a toxic gas. See this, this, and this, for examples. A merger to an article whose scope is broader and incorporates all of these is probably in order, however. Uncle G 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the article. It can certainly have some linkage from hazardous material and dangerous goods, which themselves should be merged! InvictaHOG 17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for deletion is WP:WINAD. I've rewritten the article now, and the definition is basically an elaboration of a gas that causes asphyxia. Despite my and your efforts, the article remains a stub (as predicted), and if you now compare with asphyxia, it's mostly duplication. Further, if we were to remove all asphyxiant gas from asphyxia, it becomes weak. Widefox 12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Especially with the improvements by InvictaHOG. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. merge and redirect to Asphyxia I don't want a list of all gases (but one), or every gas (but one) linked to this page! Widefox 00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

also -it's worse than Sam Clark says, it's not just non-toxic gases, but toxic too (to some extent), which I'm guessing opens the flood gates. I've updated wiktionary, as it had a clearly false definition. I'd appreciate wikionary being fixed up with a better definition than my fix. Widefox 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

also, just fixed Asphyxia page, and while re-putting in link to this page, made me realise that article is also incorrectly named Asphyxiant gases. Asphyxiant gas as per guideline. I came across the page from anti-vandal work. Widefox 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support the move of this page to simply asphyxiant gas. I'm not sure why we should consider merging this with asphyxia - we have separate articles about erotic asphyxia, positional asphyxia, Ondine's curse, etc. I do not have much knowledge about these areas, but I think that this article should include information about proper storage, relevant handling rules, and other mechanisms used to prevent exposure to asphyxiant gases. I don't feel that can (or should) be adequately covered in an umbrella asphyxia article. InvictaHOG 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten whole article, and while it has some merit, the more I researched it, the more I can see that the only way to grow the article is to list examples of types of Asphyxiant gas deaths. These are also repetition of Asphyxia. Despite being the major author now, I still say merge, and only when Asphyxia it too large, split off. Note that we're exposed to these gases with every breath! It is a misnomer that this is some category of gas, but rather defined by what causes Asphyxia. That is the best definition I've found. Widefox 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per InvictaHOG. - Lex 05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete and redirect to asphyxia. Adding references to things is good, but referencing that we can't breathe carbon dioxide doesn't make this anything that isn't covered at the asphyxia page. As noted above, the title is also against convention. Dekimasu 10:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to asphyxia, for the reasons above. The extra information there can be added to asphyxia under "inadequate oxygen in the environment". Sockatume 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per InvictaHog. Expansion is necessary, and when done would be inappropriate as a mere section under asphyxia. Gabrielthursday 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion for expansions sake, or to justify an article is not warranted as far as I can see. Already, this article is misleading people into thinking this is a separate issue to asphyxia, a property of a gas, which it isn't, the definition is asphyxia, the article should be in asphyxia, else it is misleading (like thinking that it is some kind of toxicity). Similarly we do not need a page for asphyxiant liquids, asphyxiant solids (mining accidents), asphyxiant activities - all lists. Right now, at your keyboard, you are breathing mostly asphyxiant gas! Widefox 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Asphyxiant solids and liquids are neologisms created by you for the purpose of this debate. Asphyxiant gas, however, is a valid and useful scientific and medical concept. InvictaHOG 10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, unless the article is rewritten with a different definition. The definition in the article includes every gaseous substance in the universe except pure O₂. While it is true that any of those gases could cause asphyxia, do we need an article stating that gases which are not oxygen reduce oxygen concentration? -Amarkov ^babble 23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Opinion changed to Weak keep. It still looks bad, but the only reason to delete it was that it was too broad. That has been changed now. -Amarkov ^babble 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

definition: It is just a gas that causes asphyxia.

"that causes asphyxia" seems to be unneccesarily complicated. "It is just a gas that isn't oxygen" is much clearer, and means the same thing, as any gas can produce a lack of oxygen. -Amarkov ^babble 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

there are 2 ways to look at this article. Chemistry or Medicine. The latter is used, as per term usage (health hazard). In terms of chemistry, sure I agree with you, which is why to balance the article, I've added as much chemistry in as possible. If there was any chemistry to the term, it would be valid as a separate article from Asphyxia!. Widefox 15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded the article to include sections on handling and the history of asphyxiant gases. As can be seen, the article is about much more than simple asphyxia and would simply not be appropriate as a subsection of that article, which should have much more accurate information than it does now. The recognition and identification of asphyxiant gases goes hand in hand with the history of respirators, mine safety, and OSHA regulation of industry. There is still quite a bit that can be added to each section and I invite everyone to add what they can! InvictaHOG 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It's still stupid. An article whose subject includes every single gas in the universe but one is too broad. If the definition of asphyxiant gas in the first sentence is wrong, then by all means, fix it so we can end this stupid debate. But if it isn't, any information in this article belongs Asphyxia or Gas. We do not need a page for gases not called oxygen. What's next, List of Asphyxiant Gases? -Amarkov ^babble 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on things - first of all, it sounds like we need a rewrite of the definition if you are coming away with this understanding. Many gases that are not oxygen are toxic to humans and are not the subject of this article. The number of gases which truly are asphyxiant risks is actually quite small - in practical terms, only gases which occur naturally or are concentrated and used in industrial/scientific purposes have a chance to cause asphyxia. No one is asking for a list of asphxiant gases, so let's please avoid straw men. And, whether it makes sense to everyone or not, asphyxiant gas is a medical and industrial concept which is the subject of both medical research and industrial oversight. Opposition to an article on such an established concept should automatically, IMHO, lead to opposition to many of the pages linked to the asphyxia main page such as erotic asphyxia, positional asphyxia, breathing gas, pulmonary agent, etc. Take a look at breathing gas - it is the exact opposite of this article. In essence, the definition is simply a mixture of gas which contains oxygen and inert gas. The same arguments could be used in its deletion. Yet, as you can see, a nice article discussing the common breathing gases (as opposed to every single possible combination in list form) and their uses. I believe that the expansion of this to include governmental policy vis a vis asphyxiant gases and the history of asphyxiant gases now added to the article are not likely to fit well into either the gas or asphyxia article. In short, I think that redirection/deletion is misguided. InvictaHOG 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rewrite the definition. That definition is the best one I've seen, combining partial definitions from a handful of sources (encyclopaedias, gas suppliers, dictionaries). In the end, the article has no merit in itself - It is just a gas that causes asphyxia! but has merit in asphyxia - Some non-oxygen gases will kill you before that, so it is not all gases but 1! Widefox 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear your thoughts about the points that I raised in my discussion. In addition, it would be nice if you would avoid bolding as you did above. It can be construed as rude or yelling and it's much nicer to have a calm discussion about the merits of the article. InvictaHOG 00:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a good source for an alternate definition, then do so and rewrite the article. Nobody can prevent you from doing that. However, the fact remains, the article is useless as it stands. -Amarkov ^babble 01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I will just use italic today! block-capitals = shouting (per norm), and emphasis vital (for brevity) - see the line below this text box as example. InvictaHOG's new definition is fine, although the toxicity is a distraction (but correct in term of a verifiable definition). I bet there's a load of toxic gases that kill you slower than Asphyxiation! That's why it's such a bad article - it has asphyxia at it's core. As to the number of gases, you're not narrowing it down by saying natural or man-made! So, just because you've got me going now, is a vacuum an asphyxia gas? (or part-vacuum) it's non-toxic, not enough oxygen. See what I mean, it's not a property, but more a lack of life-supporting property. There's a borderline case which is interesting that I don't know the answer to - exhaled breath - does that count? InvictaHOG - you included a ref about this - about avalanches - and directing exhaled breath away from separate air intake pocket. There wasn't enough info in the online ref, and I wasn't sure if that counts, so I removed it as discussed before. Surely it's asphyxia (not gas), because it's using the oxygen, not displacing/replacing the atmosphere. I'd like to know the answer. OK, back to your comments above... as to the other articles, I'll check them tomorrow. You've done a good job justifying it, but you must know yourself it's a bit speculative, what with the overlap. regards Widefox 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see that there's much overlap in the subjects. Asphyxia is about the medical condition, and this article is about the gases which cause it. I mean, the article on asphyxia would have no buisness mentioning handling procedures for asphyxiant gases. -Amarkov ^babble 04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Exhaled breath in a closed space actually creates a gas mixture which can be considered an asphyxiant gas. The same is true of other chemical processes in an enclosed space (such as rusting!) I'm going to be adding references soon about the oxygen and carbon dioxide amounts which are inherently dangerous in gas mixtures. I have a different (and more to the point) reference on avalanches that I was looking to add back into the article. As for a vacuum - no it causes trauma in a separate way. There are obviously always gas molecules in any vacuum, so I can see where it might be confusing. InvictaHOG 09:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(exhaled air) - sure creation, but it's also using the oxygen up (same as a fire), so it's not a displacement or dilution of the air, but a selective processing of it, hence not fitting the wording of definition (or the spirit of it), and is a borderline case. There's 2 separate cases - 1. using up the oxygen (asphyxia) vs. 2. displacement of air due to gas flow in situation (CO2 from a. fire sinking into a basement one may be sheltering in, b. porous (snow with small breathing holes) with the exhaled gas. This 10% CO2 ref I put in also comes into it - not sure why 10% lethal as logically if CO2 is an asphyxiant gas the % is irrelevant (cf. Nitrogen 78%!). This is a question for the interaction of CO2 with body that is not for me. Widefox 13:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep- WolfKeeper 16:23, 15 October 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.