Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wick effect


 * 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. Very little in the way of substantive discussion, sadly.  Sandstein  08:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wick effect

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

an alleged hypothesis about an alleged phenomenon. Uses name that can confound with ordinary phenomena. Need I say more?-- Trickipaedia (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Nobody is looking at the log from over 2 weeks ago, so I'm relisting this for visibility. (non-admin closure) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Glades12 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This nomination was improperly done, with no header or other formatting that's necessary for an AFD. The nom also put up a merge tag but only started a deletion discussion. I've fixed it up, but I don't know this subject well enough to make a vote. Glades12 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The only sources I can find are for the "John Wick effect" (movies) or an actual wick effect in geology in GScholar. Nothing about this particular effect type. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Scientific American, Northeast Today, Gizmodo, LiveScience, https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/09/23/irishmans-death-ruled-spontaneous-combustion ABC News]. I have not thoroughly reviewed all of these articles yet (or else I'd be making a !vote), but they seem legit to me. jp×g 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but probably re-title. The "wick effect" is not being used in the title as a proper noun but a descriptive phrase. Hence the lower case "e". The effect is entirely non-controversial – it is how a candle burns. This article is restricted to one very limited aspect, however, and it is actually about the means by which there can be partial or total destruction of a human body by fire. There is some slight controversy about the matter, I suppose, but it is very widely discussed. The effect is in no way concerned with whether or how a body may come into flame spontaneously. Spontaneous human combustion is an entirely different matter (which is why the articles should not be merged). SHC is not caused by the wick effect nor is it always supposed to involve the wick effect. Note that in this article none on the examples involve spontaneous combustion except possibly the last Michael Faherty example which is highly controversial. That a human body can burn by the wick effect is discussed in many reliable sources although the exact phrase "wick effect" is often not used, possibly in an attempt to avoid confusion, but unfortunately "spontaneous human combustion" is often mentioned in such articles, usually to discount the "spontaneous" aspect. Thincat (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep Improperly Nominated; and for no appearent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.247 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2022 (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.