Keep. Wood alcohol doesn't cause this kind of alcohol poisoning, nor does geraniol, which is the alcohol that makes roses smell like roses (both are lethal in sufficient quantity). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think delete actually, alcohol in non-chemistry use usually means drinking alcohol, it's the most common meaning. And it's poisoning due to alcohol. The NHS document is on the same subject, poisoning due to alcohol. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Alcoholic beverages aren't normally considered poisonous, but they cause most alcohol poisoning. That's why it's not sum-of-parts. Like water poisoning or dry drowning, the restricted meaning isn't at all apparent from the component parts. P Aculeius (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I would think that the fact that people voluntarily drink large amounts of them would back that claim up by itself. "Poisonous" and "beverage" usually don't go together. bd2412T17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yet these people who voluntarily drink large amounts are usually aware that these large amounts should not be too large or else they'll get poisoned. --WikiTiki8920:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Some people might consider intoxication alone a kind of poisoning (particularly when it arises from things like paint fumes or pollutants), but with alcohol, it has to reach a level of harm higher than that to be considered "poisoning". bd2412T21:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't see where it says "there are no people that consider alcohol intoxication to be a mild form of alcohol poisoning". Anyway, I wasn't aware that the Mayo Clinic entered the business of lexicography. --WikiTiki8916:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Keep. If I attempt to kill someone by adding a quarter cup of rubbing alcohol to his food, it still isn't alcohol poisoning, and even nonchemists recognize rubbing alcohol as alcohol. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Which is why it is SOP. Because it's the beverage sense of alcohol that we're talking about and that sense does not include rubbing alcohol. --WikiTiki8923:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think you've just disproved your own point. You can't tell from the words "alcohol poisoning" that it only refers to toxicity resulting from drinking alcoholic beverages. Even though most of us associate alcohol with beverages, we're also aware that not all alcohol is meant to be drunk, and that some of it is poisonous if drunk. Since "alcohol poisoning" isn't used to refer to poisoning by just any kind of alcohol, and that restricted meaning can't be derived from the words themselves, it's not sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My point all along has been the same. A term is equal to the sum of its parts when it ordinarily carries no additional or more specific meaning. When the ordinary meaning of the word (or even a very common sense) is more restricted, or contradicts the plain meaning of the words, then it's idiomatic, and should have an entry. By the plain meaning of the words, "alcohol poisoning" simply means poisoning by alcohol, irrespective of the type of alcohol or the manner by which it caused poisoning. I have no problem with someone using the term in this way, but in nearly every instance it will refer specifically to a medical diagnosis resulting from the victim drinking excessive amounts of non-toxic alcohol. Unlike most examples of poisoning that leap to mind, it doesn't involve someone else attempting to harm the victim by administering a poisonous substance without the victim's knowledge, or environmental exposure to a toxic substance, even though it's theoretically possible for someone to be poisoned deliberately with toxic forms of alcohol. In other words, the plain meaning of the words implies a different set of circumstances from the one normally associated with "alcohol poisoning". That's why it's not sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
My point was actually in reply to Angr. Also, there's no such thing as non-toxic alcohol. Everything's toxic in fact, oxygen, water, everything. Toxicity is not in the makeup of the substance, it's the dose. I'm glad you're making the argument because it's a coherent, intelligent one, I just happen to disagree with it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
7-3 is a clear consensus. That's better than 2-to-1. Anything that's been open for a week or more, has five or more votes, and is better than 2-to-1 in one direction should be closed. There's no requirement that RfDs have to be dead for a week to be closed. Purplebackpack8922:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
We don't seem to have any detailed written guidelines as to when to close an RFD discussion. This is just general practice. Five of the votes were in the last three days. Who's to say that in the next three days we won't have five new delete votes? A "clear" consensus would imply something nearing unanimity, not 70%-30%. --WikiTiki8923:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The fact that it's been a week and there hasn't been five delete votes... Not only is the likelihood of having five additional delete votes without any keeps improbable, it also won't be enough votes to get the article deleted. Please do not disruptively reopen discussions because you dislike the closer's results, especially if they are very unlikely to go your way. Purplebackpack8923:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Going against general practice is what is disruptive. Also, we have a generally accepted practice of allowing closings to be contested; which is part of the reason that the discussion remains on the page for at least a week after it is closed before being archived. --WikiTiki8923:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you believe that discussions shouldn't be closed 7-3 after a week, start a vote to make that policy. Until then, I stand by my decision that this should be closed as keep ASAP. Purplebackpack8923:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
More Purple hypocrisy. When there is voted-on practice, you never shut up about how it's wrong and everything should be done your way. We can't win so why create rules you will ignore? Equinox◑23:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from attacking me and confine yourself to whether or not this entry should be kept or deleted; and if kept, whether the discussion should be closed now or later. Purplebackpack8923:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
This seems to be going beyond the point of reasonable argument. It's completely unnecessary to resort to personal attacks here. The point that Mr. Purple was trying to make is that the original question, whether to delete this term, clearly doesn't have much support, as the votes were more than two to one against it, and the discussion seemed to have died down some days ago. That's a perfectly valid point, even if reasonable people could disagree as to whether that constitutes "consensus" to keep. The question isn't whether there's consensus to keep, but whether there's consensus to delete. And so far it's not even close. I also understand the argument that the discussion should be left open if people want to comment or respond to other comments. That's all that needed to be said. Let's let it stop here and get on with the business of deciding if we should keep this term or not. P Aculeius (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Delete. If you search for "alcohol poisoning" + "{type of alcohol}" on Google Books you will find that this phrase is demonstrably used to refer to poisoning from several types of alcohol.
