Talk:Spontaneous human combustion controversy

I think this article should be deleted: If a more senior Wikipedian agrees, maybe they could propose it for deletion. 220.237.34.36 15:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hopelessly POV. It is just one long argument for SHC.
 * The subject is well-covered on Spontaneous_human_combustion. This page doesn't add anything.
 * It is hard to see how it would differ from Spontaneous_human_combustion if cleaned up.
 * The only article that links here is Spontaneous_human_combustion.


 * I suggest it is merged in with Spontaneous_human_combustion. The two overlap and are inextricable. Ben Finn 11:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger Proposal -> Spontaneous human combustion
Propose for Merger with Spontaneous human combustion. This article heavily overlaps with the Spontaneous human combustion article and adds relatively little new information -- all of which could be integrated into that article. The controversy is an important factor in allowing readers to make conclusions about what Spontaneous human combustion might actually be, and the primary article is an appropriate place for that information. --DavidGC 06:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge: I would suggest that merging would enable a cleanup to allow all the "alledgedlys" to float to the section on the controversy which could be placed early on. Then we could cut down on the use of this word that some seem to find annoying and keep the information from both articles, concisely. Britmax 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge I would agree. This article should be merged, and probably renamed (...It is less of an article about the controversy, and more of a 'rebuttal' article against SHC skepticism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.3.37 (talk • contribs) (added Merge to beginning of comment -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 12:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

Merge per DavidGC's comment. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 12:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge, even though when the article was originally incoroporated in 'SHC' (main body text), it attracted a 'this is too long' flag, which led to the two being separated ..! Garrick92 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge: I believe this article can be edited down and merged successfully. The previous argument had been to delete the article and in that disucssion i advocated a merger. I am glad to see that the merger is being discussed. It is appropriate. The new article should be confined to a simple mention of his name, the essential details of his incident, a very brief summary of the controversy and then links to external sources that discuss it in detail. There are plenty of external articles that give every last detail of the case. In the context of the larger article, a mention is needed but that's it.Lisapollison 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Obvious merge and make this a redirect.--ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)