685:(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.
653:- 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
537:
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
561:- 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
649:. 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?
97:- 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!
262:, 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.
499:
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.
676:
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.
536:
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
514:
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
675:
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
215:
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.
606:
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.
476:
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
377:
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,
106:
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
326:. 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.
616:
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. -
582:. 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 -
666:
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. -
467:"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. -
271:
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
410:
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.
286:
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
72:
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
431:. 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? -
427:, unless the article is rewritten with a different definition. The definition in the article includes every gaseous substance in the universe except pure O
504:, 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!
108:
17:
637:
today! block-capitals = shouting (per norm), and emphasis vital (for brevity) - see the line below this text box as example.
342:, for the reasons above. The extra information there can be added to asphyxia under "inadequate oxygen in the environment".
147:
The main reason for deletion is WP:WINAD. I've rewritten the article now, and the definition is basically an elaboration of
119:, for examples. A merger to an article whose scope is broader and incorporates all of these is probably in order, however.
641:'s new definition is fine, although the toxicity is a distraction (but correct in term of a verifiable definition).
724:
366:
per
InvictaHog. Expansion is necessary, and when done would be inappropriate as a mere section under asphyxia.
36:
723:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
524:
446:. It still looks bad, but the only reason to delete it was that it was too broad. That has been changed now. -
389:, else it is misleading (like thinking that it is some kind of toxicity). Similarly we do not need a page for
709:
689:
680:
670:
657:
620:
611:
601:
573:
531:
508:
489:
471:
450:
435:
414:
405:
370:
358:
346:
330:
314:
294:
266:
241:
220:
208:
189:
170:
142:
123:
101:
89:
76:
56:
229:
page, and while re-putting in link to this page, made me realise that article is also incorrectly named
116:
154:. Despite my and your efforts, the article remains a stub (as predicted), and if you now compare with
367:
546:
255:
250:. I'm not sure why we should consider merging this with asphyxia - we have separate articles about
185:
54:
355:
131:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
500:
The recognition and identification of asphyxiant gases goes hand in hand with the history of
230:
706:
677:
650:
638:
608:
570:
554:
542:
505:
411:
263:
259:
251:
139:
135:
98:
204:
I don't want a list of all gases (but one), or every gas (but one) linked to this page!
343:
272:
247:
234:
73:
62:
49:
558:
550:
327:
311:
686:
667:
654:
617:
598:
528:
486:
468:
447:
432:
402:
401:- all lists. Right now, at your keyboard, you are breathing mostly asphyxiant gas!
291:
238:
217:
205:
167:
120:
501:
112:
596:
Some non-oxygen gases will kill you before that, so it is not all gases but 1!
86:
643:
I bet there's a load of toxic gases that kill you slower than
Asphyxiation!
663:
591:
585:
566:
538:
516:
482:
460:
385:
339:
323:
287:
283:
276:
226:
200:
163:
155:
150:
569:
article. In short, I think that redirection/deletion is misguided.
130:
I've expanded the article. It can certainly have some linkage from
523:. We do not need a page for gases not called oxygen. What's next,
717:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
237:
as per guideline. I came across the page from anti-vandal work.
662:
I don't really see that there's much overlap in the subjects.
562:
520:
279:. Despite being the major author now, I still say merge, and
158:, it's mostly duplication. Further, if we were to remove all
481:
to the term, it would be valid as a separate article from
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
182:Especially with the improvements by InvictaHOG.
727:). No further edits should be made to this page.
246:I would support the move of this page to simply
8:
290:. That is the best definition I've found.
645:That's why it's such a bad article -
275:deaths. These are also repetition of
138:, which themselves should be merged!
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
584:It is just a gas that causes
580:do not rewrite the definition
459:It is just a gas that causes
710:16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
690:13:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
681:09:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
671:04:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
658:02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
647:it has asphyxia at it's core
621:01:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
612:00:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
602:12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
574:10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
532:04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
509:03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
490:15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
472:14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
451:01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
436:23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
415:10:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
171:12:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
68:under the definition given,
57:23:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
406:21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
371:20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
359:20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
347:19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
331:10:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
315:05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
295:20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
267:02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
242:01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
221:00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
209:00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
190:22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
143:17:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
124:16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
102:14:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
90:13:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
77:13:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
744:
380:the definition is asphyxia
720:Please do not modify it.
525:List of Asphyxiant Gases
32:Please do not modify it.
557:, etc. Take a look at
199:merge and redirect to
399:asphyxiant activities
384:article should be in
397:(mining accidents),
547:positional asphyxia
442:Opinion changed to
256:positional asphyxia
166:, it becomes weak.
541:main page such as
391:asphyxiant liquids
310:per InvictaHOG. -
149:a gas that causes
132:hazardous material
590:but has merit in
395:asphyxiant solids
225:also, just fixed
735:
722:
633:I will just use
338:and redirect to
322:and redirect to
231:Asphyxiant gases
188:
52:
34:
743:
742:
738:
737:
736:
734:
733:
732:
731:
725:deletion review
718:
555:pulmonary agent
543:erotic asphyxia
430:
368:Gabrielthursday
252:erotic asphyxia
183:
136:dangerous goods
95:Keep and expand
66:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
741:
739:
730:
729:
713:
712:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
454:
453:
428:
420:
419:
418:
417:
374:
373:
361:
354:as per above.
349:
333:
317:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
273:Asphyxiant gas
260:Ondine's curse
248:asphyxiant gas
235:Asphyxiant gas
212:
211:
192:
176:
175:
174:
173:
160:asphyxiant gas
127:
126:
104:
92:
65:
63:Asphyxiant gas
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
740:
728:
726:
721:
715:
714:
711:
708:
704:
701:
700:
691:
688:
684:
683:
682:
679:
674:
673:
672:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
622:
619:
615:
614:
613:
610:
605:
604:
603:
600:
597:
593:
589:
587:
581:
577:
576:
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
559:breathing gas
556:
552:
551:breathing gas
548:
544:
540:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
491:
488:
484:
480:
479:any chemistry
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
465:
463:
462:
456:
455:
452:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
426:
416:
413:
409:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
381:
376:
375:
372:
369:
365:
362:
360:
357:
356:wikipediatrix
353:
350:
348:
345:
341:
337:
334:
332:
329:
325:
321:
320:Strong delete
318:
316:
313:
309:
306:
305:
296:
293:
289:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
219:
214:
213:
210:
207:
203:
202:
196:
195:Strong Delete
193:
191:
187:
181:
178:
177:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
152:
146:
145:
144:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
125:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
103:
100:
96:
93:
91:
88:
84:
81:
80:
79:
78:
75:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
719:
716:
702:
646:
642:
634:
595:
583:
579:
498:
478:
458:
457:definition:
443:
424:
422:
421:
398:
394:
390:
383:
379:
363:
351:
335:
319:
307:
280:
198:
194:
180:Strong keep.
179:
159:
148:
94:
82:
69:
67:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
502:respirators
707:WolfKeeper
678:InvictaHOG
651:InvictaHOG
639:InvictaHOG
609:InvictaHOG
571:InvictaHOG
506:InvictaHOG
412:InvictaHOG
264:InvictaHOG
140:InvictaHOG
99:InvictaHOG
444:Weak keep
344:Sockatume
281:only when
85:per nom.
74:Sam Clark
51:Yomangani
664:Asphyxia
592:asphyxia
586:asphyxia
567:asphyxia
539:asphyxia
517:Asphyxia
483:Asphyxia
461:asphyxia
386:asphyxia
340:asphyxia
328:Dekimasu
324:asphyxia
288:Asphyxia
284:Asphyxia
277:Asphyxia
227:Asphyxia
201:Asphyxia
186:ShinmaWa
164:asphyxia
156:asphyxia
151:asphyxia
687:Widefox
668:Amarkov
655:Widefox
618:Amarkov
599:Widefox
578:Please
529:Amarkov
487:Widefox
469:Amarkov
448:Amarkov
433:Amarkov
403:Widefox
292:Widefox
239:Widefox
218:Widefox
206:Widefox
168:Widefox
121:Uncle G
635:italic
425:Delete
382:, the
352:Delete
336:Delete
115:, and
83:Delete
162:from
87:MER-C
16:<
703:Keep
364:Keep
308:Keep
134:and
117:this
113:this
109:this
565:or
563:gas
527:? -
521:Gas
519:or
485:!.
312:Lex
184:--
70:all
705:-
594:-
553:,
549:,
545:,
464:.
393:,
258:,
254:,
233:.
197:.
111:,
48:-
588:!
429:2
423:*
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.