Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark empath

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 keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dark empath

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is about a pop psychology term and we are giving it undue weight by treating it as a serious topic that should have a psychology Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the sourcing situation is really bad. No medical journals are cited. Only an op-ed in The Guardian and a one-off article from Forbes. I believe that the topic could be handled in the general empath article as a section and that this article should be deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar search comes up with a bunch of results. Dark empath is a concept from psychology and shouldn't be mixed with the parapsychological concept of empath. Here are some sources: [1] [2] [3]. There is a pre-print article too [4], showing this is an area of academic inquiry and notable enough to justify an article. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 04:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any article in that search about it specifically, these (e.g. Rabl. et al (2024)) all just mention the already cited Hejm, et al. (2020) in passing while being about something else. Your first linked source is Hejm, et al. (2020), the second is a passing mention also citing it, and the third mentions dark empathy but not dark empaths. The preprint cites Hejm but does not repeat the dark empath term in its body text. I remain unconvinced. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 11:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more sources: [5] [6] [7]

The topic is clearly notable. Existence of a Wikipedia article on a concept is not an endorsement of that concept. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preprint is not a valid source as it hasn't been officially published or gone through peer-review, and honestly, it is a major red flag for a journal to release preprints at all. The first source appears to be coining the term, probably taken from pop-psychology to generate buzz, but it doesn't make reference to previous use of the term, in a way making it primary, as it is "inventing" the term. The second two only reference it briefly.

"Dark empath" might be a notable topic, but it is absolutely pseudo-psychology and is not widely accepted, and should not be treated as legitimate. Ike Lek (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Dark empath" might be a notable topic, but it is absolutely pseudo-psychology and is not widely accepted, and should not be treated as legitimate.

I don't disagree, but AfD is not the venue for discussion about the neutrality of articles or their tone. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't advocated for deletion yet. I'm concerned about the reliability of the sources, which does play a role in AfD. If a source is deemed unreliable, and the only secondary sources about a topic cite it at face value, then we have a notability issue because sources built on unreliable information are themselves unreliable. Ike Lek (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you think are unreliable? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original study coining the term (Heym et al., 2021). If the study is addressed in-depth by other sources, that could make the term "dark empath" notable regardless of its scientific legitimacy, but if all the sources citing the original study merely restate what the original study says without expanding on it or providing analysis of it, then they don't really contribute to notability claims. Ike Lek (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original study coining the term (Heym et al., 2021).

It was published in Personality and Individual Differences, a peer-reviewed academic journal published 16 times per year by Elsevier. I believe that is an WP:RS. It being a primary source does not make it unreliable, nor ineligible for use as a source in Wikipedia articles. In addition, Nadja Heym has been listed as an author on 111 published articles, with over 3000 total citations. The (Heym et al., 2021) paper has been cited 63 times. Heym is a recognised academic with a PhD, and works as a professor at the University of Nottingham.

if all the sources citing the original study merely restate what the original study says without expanding on it or providing analysis of it, then they don't really contribute to notability claims

That "if" is doing a lot of work since one would have to read 63 journal articles to confirm or deny the proposition.

Heym wrote about "dark empaths" for TheConversation [8] and the story was republished by other outlets: [9]. Other secondary sources that are about the paper: [10] [11] [12]

I think I have addressed your concerns. I am going to let others give their opinion and let the AfD take its course. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dark empath/dark empathy are concepts found in academic sources. Empath is not a suitable merge target because it deals with parapsychology. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dark triad in that case would be a suitable merge target. The only academic source that meaningfully differentiates the two is Hejm, et al. Everybody else is citing that paper in passing as part of studies of the dark triad. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search in google scholar shows this is a term used in published RS in the field of psychology in multiple reliable sources. Clearly a WP:BEFORE was not done. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Psiĥedelisto, I don't know if you were aware of this, but WP:Undue weight is about the balance within a single article. Wikipedia can't actually give undue weight to something by having an article on it, no matter how trivial, pop culture-y, etc. the subject is. I don't expect articles about any kind of pop science to be cited to serious scientific sources; that's why they're pop science instead of regular science. If anyone'd like to improve the article, I'd suggest looking for sociology sources, as there may be a few (in the vein of "what's happening in this culture, that made this concept appealing on (anti)social media". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2025 (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.