Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Michael Faherty

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 merge to Wick effect#2010 Galway case. The "keep" opinions don't address the question of notability and must be discounted. Since Wick effect has for now been kept, it remains a possible merge target. Sandstein 08:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Michael Faherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable in any way.--Trickipaedia (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is one of the few notable cases of Spontaneous human combustion. Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Wick effect#2010 Galway case or Spontaneous human combustion#Notable examples. If, as noted, the subject's only notability is as an example of another topic, then the content can easily be covered in the article about that topic. Guliolopez (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I don't see evidence of lasting coverage (although there is a spike), so it's probably better off in a list of some kind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as Spontaneous human combustion is indeed rare. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "What is rare is wonderful". This is a saying in Ireland. "What is rare is notable". This is not a policy/norm on Wikipedia. Unless I am missing something? Guliolopez (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge, redirect? There doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete this unusual article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, A widely publicized case of Spontaneous Human Combustion & one of the few notable cases of Such Happenings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can those arguing for "keep", please frame their arguments on the basis of a specific policy? When did rarity and notability come to mean the same thing? "X is only one of a few examples of Y" doesn't read as an argument that "X" is notable. It reads as an argument for why "Y" is notable. (And perhaps a reason to cover X in the article on Y.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist. Note that this topic goes hand-in-hand with Wick effect, which is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wick effect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.