Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inert gas asphyxiation

Inert gas asphyxiation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]