(Notice your Wikipedia link is full of hypotheticals and description, and not real world evidence.)
Precisely. The wikipedia article set out to explain what the Sunk Cost Fallacy is and did it. It did not set out to answer any of the dozens of questions which would make sense as titles to your post (such as "Is the sunk cost fallacy a problem in humans?") and so real world 'evidence' wouldn't make much sense. Just like filling up the article on No True Scottsman with evidence about whether True Scottsman actually do like haggis would be rather missing the point! (The hypothetical is built right into the name for the informal fallacy!)
then it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether accusations of sunk cost fallacy - which are endemic and received wisdom - are themselves fallacious.
And with a slight tweak that is another thing that you could make your post about that wouldn't necessitate dismissing it out of hand. Please consider renaming along these lines.
Finally, your criticism of the title or what overreaching you perceive in it aside, did you have any actual criticism like missing refs or anything?
Without implicitly accepting the connotations here by responding - No, your article seems to be quite thorough with making references. In particular all the dot points in the summary seem to be supported by at least one academic source.
I just finished the first draft of my essay, "Are Sunk Costs Fallacies?"; there is still material I need to go through, but the bulk of the material is now there. The formatting is too gnarly to post here, so I ask everyone's forgiveness in clicking through.
To summarize:
(If any of that seems unlikely or absurd to you, click through. I've worked very hard to provide multiple citations where possible, and fulltext for practically everything.)
I started this a while ago; but Luke/SIAI paid for much of the work, and that motivation plus academic library access made this essay more comprehensive than it would have been and finished months in advance.