Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy

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 and Redirect to Schadenfreude. Having two articles on effectively the same subject is content forking; the normal English word is clearly schadenfreude and there does not appear to be any difference between the meanings. Therefore a mention of this word in the article Schadenfreude is reasonable and sufficient. Some information is already there; editors may wish to add more, although respecting the fact that this should always be a minor section (in the manner of WP:WEIGHT). Black Kite 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epicaricacy

Epicaricacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

• Nominated for Delete per WP:NAD, consensus on talk page is for re-direct to "Schadenfreude" betsythedevine (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• CommentHow exactly do you define consensus? Three users in a one-day period? This nomination flies in the face of reason or trying to build "consensus." --evrik ^(talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• CommentThe point of this nomination is to try to reach out to a wider group for consensus. I agree that three users commenting on a very obscure article is a very small sample of consensus, but I also think it is significant discussion that was conducted in good faith and with people explaining their opinions and citing Wikipedia policy to back them up. For example, as Grafen said, " From WP:NAD in relation to Wikipedia: "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing, or different spellings for the same word, are duplicate articles that should be merged. For examples: petrol and gasoline; colour and color." And by contrast in relation to Wiktionary: "Different words warrant different articles (e.g. petrol and gasoline)." betsythedevine (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Really, I don't think this is the correct forum for this. If you had wanted to bring in other comments, there are other forums for that. This nomination kinda smells to me. --evrik ^(talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 4 editors (including me) that supported the redirect. For an unnoticed topic such as this, this is pretty clear consensus. The "usage" section does not show any usage; this is obvious to anyone. The only two sources you could find for the word "epicaricacy" seem to be collections of rare and obscure words, some of which it is doubtful they are even words. Standard dictionaries such as the OED make no mention of it. The reason you seem to have created this article is because you originally thought schadenfreude was not an English word and you thought epicaricacy was the English equivalent. The evidence is clear that you are wrong, but since you refuse to admit it, we are here. --C S (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of consensus, why did you reverse my redirect when you had not managed to drum up any support? Even if you are correct in asserting consensus was minimal for the redirect, clearly you had no support at all. --C S (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Three editors in one day was a little premature, wasn't it? --evrik ^(talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Schadenfreude, as that's the more common term and hence the more likely search term. Why is this at AfD if you want to redirect it? AnturiaethwrTalk 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also be open to deletion, as this discussion makes me question its probability as a search term, as does its absence from the Oxford English Dictionary. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't this the right way to propose deleting the article and making a search for it re-direct to Schadenfreude? Somebody did re-direct the article already on May 10, after significant discussion on the talk page, but the article creator just reverted the re-direct. betsythedevine (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Again, three users commented in a one-day period, that's significant discussion on the talk page? No, if it were to be redirected (and I am not saying it should be) it should be reverted to this entry where it was a soft redirect to wiktionary. --evrik ^(talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the article is to be made into a redirect, then it should be done in the same way in which it was done earlier. Deletion would only hinder that process. "Articles for deletion" is not "Articles for redirection." AnturiaethwrTalk 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the word has value unto itself. The article has some encyclopedic content. It is more than an word entry. It already exists on wiktionary. --evrik ^(talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Either keep this as a separate article or merge. Deletion is simply the wrong option here. Personally, I vote to keep it as a separate article per options above. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Schadenfreude: I note that of the three citations for the word "in English" in the article, one refers only to the Greek root word from which it is derived, and the other two citations are in passages where it is clear from the context that they are referring to Greek people, concepts or ideas. I have seen this word used nowhere in American English in the way Schadenfreude has been -- that is, independent of an original-language context -- and I further note that a quick search of AHD4 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) on Bartleby.com produces no entry at all for this word. It might be mentioned in the context of the more widely used word, but I see nothing that argues for a standalone article.Marketstel (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think the key question is whether or not Schadenfreude and Epicaricacy are distinct subjects. Other than etymology, are there different things to write about each? I don't have an opinion on this, however, I would err on the side of giving this article a chance to grow and prove itself. ike9898 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• (response to Ike9898's comment) I don't think anyone has claimed that "epicaricacy" means something different from "Schadenfreude." Evrik's argument for changing multiple links that used to go to Schadenfreude so that now they go instead to the new article he created for epicaricacy ([1] [2] [3] and more) seems to be that epicaricacy is better than Schadenfreude because it is an English word, not a German loan-word. [4]. See also the discussion of this on Evrik's talk page [5]. betsythedevine (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• How is that relevant? What does this have to do with your nomination? Are you saying you nominated it because I started replacing the usage of the word schadenfreude? What does the usage of the word have to do with whether or not the article should exist? Again, your nomination of the article for deletion, rather than working it out on the talk page, is suspect. If what you wanted to do was start a discussion, then you should withdraw this nomination for deletion and have a discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• The remarks you object to were relevant to the comment I was replying to, not to the original AfD. May I also remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I have no wish to withdraw this AfD because I believe the article should be deleted and replaced by a redirect to Schadenfreude, which talks about the same complex of emotions. It should not be replaced by a re-direct to this word in Wiktionary, because people who search Wikipedia are looking for information about things, not for etymological discussion of obscure words. betsythedevine (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• May I also remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --evrik ^(talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Schadenfreude. My arguments, based on WP:NAD, are on the article talk page and quoted by betsythedevine above. The question is not whether the article does now or might in the future contain some encyclopaedic content. It is whether "epicaricacy" has any significantly different meaning from "Schadenfreude", and I have as yet seen no claim or evidence that it does. Grafen (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's one difference: schadenfreude was not a term or concept used by Aristotle, epicaricacy was. --evrik ^(talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, these two words are synonyms. Thus, if "epicaricacy" was used by Aristotle, "Schadenfreude" was too; it becomes a case of competing translations. Is there a distinction between the two concepts? If so, what is it? AnturiaethwrTalk 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Competing translations? That's somewhat nonsensical. This isn't about a dictionary definition. This is about an encyclopedic entry. Yes, the words are synonyms. Yet... they have different roots and different histories. Epicaricacy does some directly from. Aristotle was a Greek, and his concept, and the Greek root word predated the German concept by more than a millennium. There's enough here for an encyclopedic entry. What it needs is time to grow. --evrik ^(talk) 02:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• How the words themselves are distinct from one another is immaterial unless the respective articles are about the words, rather than the concept; this would violate WP:DICDEF unless the words qua words (i.e. divorced from their referents) were notable, and I don't see any claim that this is the case. Therefore, I reiterate: what is the distinction between the psychological state denoted by "epicaricacy" and that denoted by "Schadenfreude"? (Since you say that the two words are synonyms, as I had surmised, I take it that there is none; do I understand you correctly?) AnturiaethwrTalk 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and discuss the Greek term in Schadenfreude. The OED (2nd ed.) does not recognize this, or anything like it, as an English word, and this spelling is not what would be used even if it were an English word ("epichaerecacy" would be closer to what the word would look like if it had ever been adopted into English, and a straight transliteration would be "epichairekakia"). Aristotle's use of ἐπιχαιρεκακία and Burton's and Lewis's references to that use constitute information that has a valid place in WP, but this mistitled article isn't the place, nor is the title a plausible redirect. Deor (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, although I don't object to redirect since that is cheap. I highly doubt epicaricacy is a real English Word, appearing to be sourced only to dubious references. Standard dictionaries such as OED make no mention of it. --C S (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't actually seem to be an English word. Quale (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As Evrik says, the etymology is unique and seems to have predated the German concept by more than a millennium. There's plenty of content for a good encyclopedic entry. Let's give it time to grow. Johntex\^talk 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I would urge those who voiced their opinion early in this debate to re-examine the article in its current state. I believe the article is now much more about the concept rather than the word itself. The article on Schadenfreude is still largely about the word itself, by contrast. If the two articles are to be merged, text about the concept should be primary, and etymology and usage of either term should be secondary. ike9898 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• True, the article is now much better than it was, and in fact covers the subject in better detail than Schadenfreude does (though it's still marginal); thus, a merge would improve Schadenfreude. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Evrik has written up some excellent historical material about the Greek word for schadenfreude as evidence of historical interest in the emotion described. Considering that people are unlikely to search for the rare word "epicaricacy" but likely to search for the common term "schadenfreude", I would like to see this material added to the schadenfreude article where it can benefit Wikipedia users. Without removing any of it from epicaricacy, I did add the parts I thought were valuable to schadenfreude as well as more information about its usage and scientific research concerning it. betsythedevine (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the compliment, I removed those additions as they are more appropriate for the "E" article and not the "S" article. If for some reason this article doesn't pass the AfD, well then, by all means use it. --evrik ^(talk) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Please stop what you're doing in the schadenfreude article. You are blatantly copying the work I've done in an effort to strengthen the "S" article. Reallly, at least have the decency to do your own research. --evrik ^(talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect or merge to schadenfreude. There is way too much fuss about this word, epicaricacy, that has 7 thousands occurrences on a Google search, while its current English synonym schadenfreude has 1,5 million occurrences. The problem is that user Evrik is acting unilaterally, without discussing and settling the question first, for imposing the use of the word epicaricacy AGAINST schadenfreude throughout the encyclopedia, while other editors are trying to make sense with the article Schadenfreude and its incoming links. Epicaricay should definitely be dealt with under the article Schadenfreude, or then we are going to have countless duplicates articles since almost every thing or event may have diverse words from various origins that are used for referring to them with various nuances. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: One of the worst things about wikipedia is the way people fight over some REAALLY stupid things. This is a case in point. Most of the comments about having it deleted keep calling the article a dictionary definition, which it is not. In fact, this appears to me to be a well-referenced article, and does not look like a dictionary entry. So, all the comments about the word or the article not being in the OED are really immaterial.

Perhaps the article should be named differently, but that is not what an AfD is for. Looking at the article as it stands now it has context and history. There is no reason why an article about an emotion, described by a word with Greek roots, should be shoe-horned into an article about a German word.

Finally about process. What the hell is wrong with Betsythedevine? Many times when articles are nominated for AfD, the people who have worked on the article start working to improve the quality of the article and its relevance. Betsy is not only attacking people for doing so, but is herself going around and ,making snide comments as she is doing so. She is not a novice user, so her comments about placing it in AfD to get consensus are hogwash. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NPA? I never claimed that my only goal in creating an AfD was "consensus." My edit summaries are meant to be informative, not snide. I did not "attack" Evrik for improving the article, I praised his efforts. I did not attack him for improving its "relevance" but I voiced concern that his adding a pile of new links to the article could muddy the issue of its real importance. Your angry and inaccurate accusations are much more in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia than my attempts to make it better by preventing a fork and the siphoning of users away from a real article about a real word schadenfreude (granted that article could use improvement) by shipping them off to admire a brand-new article about an inkhorn term whose defenders can't cite even one non-dictionary source of its use in English to describe the emotion everyone calls "schadenfreude." If you want to make a formal complaint about my behavior, I'm sure any admin can help you to figure out how. This section is not the appropriate place for personal attacks on your fellow editors. betsythedevine (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Since your first edit was apparently only a few weeks ago, perhaps you're not in the best position to lecture people on how things are done around here. Unless, of course, you're not as novice as you seem. Deor (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The argument for deletion is not that the article is a WP:DICDEF. Rather, it is that this is an unnecessary content fork of Schadenfreude. No one has yet asserted that epicaricacy is not, in fact, Schadenfreude. Therefore, a merge is in order. The resulting article should be called "Schadenfreude," because that is a word in common parlance, while it is a subject of debate whether "epicaricacy" is a word at all (hence the references to the OED); if it is a word, it is extraordinarily rare. It is unfortunate that the existing Schadenfreude article is largely about the word, rather than about the concept; however, that's all the more reason to merge useful information into it. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Anturiaethwr, epicaricacy is not, in fact, schadenfreude. If anything, it is the other way around. How's that? --evrik ^(talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense. If Schadenfreude is epicaricacy, then epicaricacy is Schadenfreude. The two terms both refer to a state of joy at another's misfortune; you even admit above that they're synonyms. If you draw a distinction between the two, please tell me what it is. I'll be more than willing to change my recommendation. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay ...

1. Aristotle cited Greek equivalent of epicaricacy as part of his classifaction of virtues and emotions.
2. schadenfreude derives from the Middle High German schade and vreude

The greek term was used by English writers as far back as 1261, which coincedentally was the same time as the usage of Middle High German. The terms are independent of each other in their development, history and usage. It is appropriate to have the articles link between each other, but they should remain separate. A good example of this is Zeus, Jupiter and Tinia. I could cite other examples. --evrik ^(talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• That establishes a difference between the terms (which was never in dispute), not between the concepts to which they refer. Zeus, Jupiter, and Tinia have different articles because they are deities from different cultures (i.e. Zeus is a Greek god, and neither Roman nor Etruscan; Jupiter a Roman god, and neither Greek nor Etruscan; and Tinia an Etruscan god, and neither Roman nor Greek); their equivalence and similarities do not enter into the equation. I have yet to see a difference between epicaricacy ("a human psychological response that entails the rejoicing at, taking joy in, or getting pleasure from the misfortunes of others") and Schadenfreude ("enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone else"). (These definitions leave either as a plausible translation of the original Greek word; that's what I meant by my "competing translations" comment above.) The difference in etymology is not at all relevant, unless the article is about the term, rather than about the concept. The article as it stands is about the concept, rather than the term (i.e. it does not fail WP:DICDEF); therefore, etymology is immaterial in this discussion. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep per all the reasons stated above. Somebody should slap Betsy's hands for abusing process. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep in light of revisions made to the article since I first read it. It is now more an explanation of the emotion and where it fit in the original Greek cosmology of emotions than a simple definition, and as such, is a framework on which a more comprehensive article could be built. I think that in the long run, given the very close similarity of the two emotions, if this article is not merged with the one on Schadenfreude, some reference should be made in each to the other and the historical distinctions between the two terms/concepts. Marketstel (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment independent of above recommendation: I'm surprised at the level of hostility displayed in some of the discussion about this. If the intent of the original entry was to show that the concept embodied in the term Schadenfreude predated the coinage of the German word, then that in itself is useful, and an article on the concept like the one now here is valuable. But given that the word itself is used much less often in English -- I think that the OED and AHD references above are actually somewhat probative of that -- the people who would enjoy learning about this might not find it absent some connection to the more widely used term. Marketstel (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, no decent reason for deletion. Improvement since nomination noted. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to schadenfreude as {{R from merge}}, which I believe is required under GDFL since some new content has been merged there. Its meaning overlaps so closely with schadenfreude that they are synonyms, and it would be a violation of policy Wikipedia:Content forking to retain a separate article. Article content about the emotion should be merged there. Article content that is merely about etymology may find a good home on Wiktionary, but does not belong here. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith on Betsy's nom, but I call keep in the first place on the sole grounds that AFD is not the forum for discussing redirect. No real reason to delete, and it's not purely a dicdef at this point. Improvements noted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I feel it should be kept. The easy support of keeping it is that Schadenfreude is currently under copyright investigation. Redirecting to a page that is invalid surely is no way to solve the issue. Raider.adam (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC) contribs) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

* Comment Schadenfreude is currently under copyright investigation only because it was placed there by Sur de Filadelfia who wants this debate to resolve to "keep." I admire Evrik's work to make the article epicaricacy better. Efforts to improve the status of epicaricacy by attacking the status of schadenfreude do not seem to me to be good Wikipedia practice. betsythedevine (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

* Comment I see the copyright has been removed, but I still retain a "keep" vote. I believe they etymology, historical and literary differences make them enough of a difference to warrant their own entries. The goal should be increasing the breadth of information, not narrowing. As long as both articles retain entries mentioning each other to allow the reader to progress, it works for me. Raider.adam (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's a dandy word, and if it's good enough for Aristotle, it's good enough for me. There's enough unique content to merit a freestanding article and it would be too long a digression to include in the Schadenfreude article. In my humble opinion, your mileage may vary, etc. Lblanchard (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but this article has a lot more info than a dictionary entry would. It has similarities to schadenfreude, but different roots, uses, and history. What's the harm in more content? Eagleapex (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment A lot of Keep votes seem to be coming in from Philadelphia. There is Evrik, plus Sur_de_Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, and now Eagleapex, all showing up to favor of keeping this article, all with Philadelphia material prominent in their user pages or contributions. Yet among other commenters, the great majority has a different opinion. I'm also concerned that so many new arrivals have a mistaken idea about what is being discussed here. Nobody is claiming or has claimed that the epicaricacy article is just a dictionary definition. The point of the WP:NAD is something else entirely; that words with the same meaning get separate articles in a dictionary but not in an encyclopedia. Aristotle did not use the word "epicaricacy', he used the Greek word from which it is derived. Schadenfreude is not "a German word", it is a word of German origin now commonly used by many educated speakers of English and by the news media. Increasing the breadth of information in Wikipedia can be achieved by creating a single article that contains all our information about the emotion described, including an informative discussion of the inkhorn term "epicaricacy." betsythedevine (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, with all due respect to the persons that are usually good contributors, there is a cabal because someone became infatuated in good faith, hopefully, with an idea that is blatantly false for those who are familiar with the concept and thing called schadenfreude. The idea is to replace the use in Wikipedia of the German word Schadenfreude by the use of the English word epicaricacy. It seems that rational argument are of no avail in this affair. That's why I voted in favor of deleting the entry Epicaricacy (or redirect or merge, but never let it go as a POV fork!). First, it is such a rare synonym of a 'current' English word that epicaricay is not worth an article by itself, and though it would not be an entry by itself, it would figure within the article Schadenfreude and thus could still be found in WP by a 'Search' rather than a 'Go' in the main search box. Second, a deletion would nip the cabal in the bud: otherwise, we might have to come back again and again for discussing a redirect or a merge or a split. Deleted article are a lot harder to recreate. Countering a cabal is not an argument for deletion, but since we are in the irrational... All this is really futile in some regards, but in some others what is at stake is the games people play. We all play games that are important for us, but at times we are all called to transcend our cherished games for the sake of our greater collective progress. So, please ladies and gentlemen, let's resolve this matter 'intrinsically', to the best of our knowledge. --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Just a note to mention that I've filed a suspected sockpuppetry report involving Sur de Filadelfia here. Oh, and Lblanchard is a Philadelphia user that you forgot to mention. Deor (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Inkhorn, isn't schadenfreude inkhoen as well? Really, you haven't made your point. Attacking other users again, and trying to discredit them doesn't prove your point either. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Schadenfreude" used to be a pretty obscure word, but it has gained a lot of popularity over just the past decade. Ben Affleck and Lisa Simpson use the word "schadenfreude." Not even the OED includes "epicaricacy." So I do see a difference between the inhorn status of the two words. betsythedevine (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Cabal? Really. Intrinsic value: this article has a lot more info than a dictionary entry would. That should settle it. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. Sur de Filadelfia has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked user South Philly. I've therefore stricken out his contributions to this discussion. Deor (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- this word when used in English seems to be used as a transliteration of the Greek. There is a standard name used by English speakers for this concept: schadenfreude. DGG (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have new information, hopefully. John Portmann published in 1999 a whole book about schadenfreude When Bad Things Happen to Other People. He said in a 2002 interview:

  (...) English speakers have been loath to recognise Schadenfreude as a fact of their lives. In the English language, we’ve taken so many other German words on board – words like winter, and summer, and swimmer, and apple and angst, kindergarten what-have-you. I find it very interesting that we have tried to keep the word Schadenfreude out of the English language, when it is so vital to human experience.

On page 42 of his book, which significantly never mentions the extremely rare word epicaricacy, we can read:

Aristotle ties pleasure in the misfortune of others to spite (he specifically decries Schadenfreude, N.E. 2.6.18).

It must be said, though, that Portmann in his book always uses schadenfreude as a German word, that is to say capitalized and italicized. Then, the word that appears in English since the nineteenth century was not fully naturalized yet in 1999. Perhaps this is another reason why Evrik and others are still trying to replace it (1,5 million Google results) with the supposedly more English word epicaricacy (7 tousands Google results). However, since 1999 an important trend has gained momentum. Robert Matuozzi was expressing this trend in his 2001 review of Portmann's book:

A pervasive social and psychological feature of modern times, Schadenfreude has recently migrated from the German language to American popular culture, with the word and the dynamic occasionally cropping up in movies and music, folklore, and to a lesser extent in newspapers and magazines, either explicitly or in cleverly contrived subtexts.

--Robert Daoust (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that "epicaricacy" gets only 311 or so unique Google results. Deor (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of comments

• Keep - 10
• Delete - 5
• Merge (or redirect) - 3

-Sur de Filadelfia (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Are you counting votes? Why? AnturiaethwrTalk 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note that if we are "counting," at least 6 of those 10 "keep" votes seem to come from Philadelphia. betsythedevine (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note that the above comment is completely irrelevant. Unless sockpuppetry is proven, we don't discriminate based upon people's geographic locations. Johntex\^talk 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• OK, well here is one that you will then agree should be taken of the list of "votes:" User:Sur_de_Filadelfia, who created this list, has been banned as a proven sock of banned user South Philly. There was also (in Dec. 2007) a Checkuser called to see if SouthPhilly might be a sockpuppet of Evrik, since both were involved in vote-stacking the same AfDs. betsythedevine (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Why I mention the Philadelphia connection: Wikipedia policy "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another." betsythedevine (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Betsy for bringing this to everyone's attention; however, I don't think it's too helpful to belabor this. While the sudden influx of Philedelphia related editors is worrisome, it doesn't necessarily indicate canvassing by Evrik. After all, editors that know him may simply have been alerted by the activity in his user talk page and decided to take a look at epicaricacy. What is more to the point is that all these supporters have failed to address the pertinent point: epicaricacy is not a real word. They have yet to demonstrate a single use of the word. The lack of usage is damning as far as epicaricacy's status as a word of the English language is concerned. As has been pointed out several times before, the usage demonstrated in the article is limited to usage of different transciptions (not "epicaricacy") of a Greek word. Saying "it's encyclopedic" or "this is a useful concept with its own history" (the main arguments of the supporters) do not address this. I don't see how essentially making up a word to describe the same concept as schadenfreude and then writing about the supposed etymology of the fake word is encyclopedic; I also don't see how using a different word to describe the same thing creates a different concept and thus a different article.

If I was one to make a [[WP:POINT|point], I would go find some word in Icelandic synonymous with a well-known loan word from Japanese (like say, "honcho"), make up a transcription of it into English characters, then create a page on it with a "usage" section based on different transciptions of the Icelandic word, then replace all references to "honcho" with this other word claiming "honcho" is not an English word. Then when it is pointed out that "honcho" is indeed English while my word is obscure, I will then respond that "honcho" is Japanese and if that doesn't work, that my word should be kept since its etymology is Icelandic not Japanese, thus Wikipedia should have the valuable historical information about this English word of Icelandic origin separate from the Japanese origin. Then I will include quotes from ancient writings using the Icelandic word and claim this creates a different concept since clearly it predated the use of "honcho". That would bring us to the same ridiculous point we are at now. --C S (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There certainly was canvassing going on here - that was how I came to be involved in this discussion and I am certain that this was the case with the other Philly users. Until reading the comment above, I was not aware of the canvassing guideline, but it makes sense. That said, I feel I was a neutral participant in this discussion and I stand by the opinions I've expressed. ike9898 (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ike9898, there was canvassing going on here by Evrik. I was the recipient of a notification about this AfD and in the past a few others, asking for participation. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge This is getting old. Wikipedia only has one article per subject, and the above discussion doesn't seem to establish that this is anything but one subject. Lots of subjects have more than one name- it's not that difficult to deal with. The first sentence of the article can mention both names. ike9898 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge (changing from "Delete" since good material has been created in epicaricacy). One article, the best we can make it, about this emotion. There are good reasons Wikipedia doesn't like to "fork" one subject into two articles. The best reason not to fork is the loss to our readers -- who find part of the information about this subject but also miss part of it because they didn't click through to the other article. betsythedevine (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Does that mean you're withdrawing your nomination? AnturiaethwrTalk 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Anturaethwr, thank you so much for your helpful explanation, which I just found on your talk page. If I had known about the page for inviting participation in a potentially controversial merger Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers, that would have met all my goals for what I wanted to do when I originally filed an AfD. If the experienced Wikipedian Evrik had directed my attention to that page instead of assuming I must know all about it and denouncing my bad faith, much later heat and unhappiness could have been short-circuited. I will withdraw my AfD as soon as I figure out how to replace it with a Merge and Redirect. Maybe that can bring consensus and civility to what has become a much-too-angry discussion. Once again, thank you so much for your civility and helpfulness. betsythedevine (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I like the word. English Subtitle (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• So do I, but please read WP:ILIKEIT. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. Have stricken out the !vote of English Subtitle—self-admitted South Philly sock. Deor (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- looking at what the cited sources actually say, there's not much to indicate that the word "epicaricacy" actually exists. The old dictionaries cited spell it differently, Schadenfreude is equivalent in meaning. It doesn't appear in Merriam-Webster or the OED. At best this is a neologism hardly appropriate even for Wiktionary. --Stlemur (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I undid/removed a long personal statement apparently from banned user Sur_de Philadelphia , which includes among other things the text of Evrik's canvassing email. If you want to read or respond to the statement, I moved the whole thing to Sur de Philadelphia's talk page.

• Merge and Redirect per WP:NAD. Dori (Talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on the long pink thing above: CS, seems to be afraid of losing the debate on the merits. Actually no. As I responded above, I wish to bring the discussion back to the relevant points of the AFD not about canvassing. That is why I wrote a long detailed response explaining what I thought was wrong with the "keep" arguments and gave an extended analogy to point out their flaws. You have chosen to ignore my argument, stating "The whole Icelandic discussion is pretty amusing because it isn't really true or applicable to this case, but hides an even bigger point [about bad faith behavior/nomination]". Then you chose to go on at length about this "even bigger point" rather than addressing the relevant points. Please explain why my example is "amusing" or not "really true or applicable". It seems to be entirely relevant as it demonstrates that there is no evidence Epicaricacy is an English word nor is it a different entity requiring a separate article. Just asserting that "the concepts ARE different" doesn't cut it. Give some evidence.
• The following comments will address the attacks on myself and others; those not interested can ignore them. Betsythedevine, Deor and CS have attacked Evrik, Sur de Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex and Lblanchard. Um, no. Please show me where I have attacked any of these people. It's easy to conflate criticism of the article or faulty reasoning with an attack on someone, but that doesn't make it so. It's also easy to say that if someone points out a behavioral guideline was broken, that this is an attack. But that doesn't make it one either. I also don't believe Deor has attacked anyone either. Some of Betsy's actions could be taken as attacks, but it appears to me that the Evrik meatpuppets (whoever that includes) started the attacks. Betsy's actions are understandable (although not completely justified) in that context.
• Why have they done their best to discredit every contributor who has disagreed with them? I have not yet attempted to discredit anyone. But perhaps it is time. After all that has been said and done, do I believe that Evrik's motivations were pure? That he had the best interest of Wikipedia rather than a desire to be right or assert himself by his unilateral actions? No. Sometimes some people are more concerned about being right than doing what is good for Wikipedia. Perhaps Evrik justifies his actions as he is doing what is best for Wikipedia. but I have seen plenty of editors like him before. When they clearly are failing to convince anyone, their friends/sockpuppets log on, start making attacks on the other editors and disrupting Wikipedia. This is not the first time this has happened with Evrik and if he returns, probably not the last. Designating himself coordinator of WikiProject Awards by use of a meatpuppet (South Philly) when nobody agrees with his decisions and then getting in a revert war with everyone else. These are the actions of a petulant child, who when he doesn't get what he wants, decides he will play dirty pool to get it. What you say about this whole thing being "silly" is correct. None of us took this thing personally. For us, it was simply one of many decisions about the encyclopedia that is made on a daily basis. Simply a matter of policy and arguing policy. Somebody chose to take it personally and make it a war. Does it really matter to me if the article is kept? No. I believe that would be the wrong decision, but you won't see me log on later with sockpuppets and encouraging friends and family to come edit war. It should have just been business as usual, but somebody's idea of "business as usual" on Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia doesn't really work by consensus; it works by who gets the most votes. If someone is losing a vote, the best thing to do is swiftboat them." With an attitude like that, no wonder you can justify the way your group has been behaving. --C S (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Request for admin help to close AfD First, I would like to thank User:Anturiaethwr for real help in understanding the difference between WP:DELETE and WP:MERGE. The few AfD discussions I have been in often included people suggesting "Merge" so I did not realize there was a separate process, which would have been much less painful to Evrik if I had done that, for proposing a merger that was controversial and inviting outside comment. So I would like to withdraw this AfD and propose instead that the fine material Evrik added to epicaricacy be merged into schadenfreude, including of course mentioning the existence (in history and a few dictionaries at least) of the English word "epicaricacy." Then we will have one good article instead of a rivalry between two articles for content and inbound links. I have added this to WP:PM and added a discussion section at Talk:Epicaricacy#Merge. I would like to see the AfD notice at the top of "epicaricacy" replaced by a Merge notice, but I think an admin has to remove AfD first. betsythedevine (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem! AnturiaethwrTalk 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to close this AFD early. "Merge and redirect" is one of the possible outcomes at AFD. My support for "Redirect" above is in effect the same thing as merge; I only wrote "Redirect" because it seemed to me that all necessary content had already been merged at that point. As some content was first created at epicaricacy then added to schadenfreude, it is better to keep the edit history of epicaricacy to show who created it. "Merge and redirect" achieves that. It is also permissible to create a bare redirect after deletion, but that removes the edit history. Let's allow the debate to complete its normal course. Whether it ends in merge or delete, it forbids creating a WP:POVFORK article again. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Schadenfreude. These are two words for the same emotion, no need for two articles. I have some doubts about "redirect" for such an inkhorn term, but redirects are cheap. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (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.