Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual-character concept


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Dual-character concept

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage beyond trivial mentions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - agree on no WP:SIGCOV, looks like only one non-comprehensive result on JSTOR for "dual-character concept" from 2018. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: plenty of sources giving significant coverage on Google Scholar:. And there seem to be even more, this was just from the first few pages of results. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Per the sources listed above. Also found a 2022 book with a significant section on "A Framework for Understanding Dual Character Concepts". Skynxnex (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I really can't understand how an article on this topic in the philosophy of cognition has got to AFD at all. The article has three good references cited in-line which were there at the time of the nomination. Two are making use of the concept and explaining aspects. Are they thought inappropriate? A third provides evidence for the concept. An article explaining the nature of the concept has been put forward above. And, also pointed out above, there is a whole book chapter, chapter three of Experimental Philosophy of Identity and the Self. I am also only finding one reference on JSTOR but I don't think that matters. Thincat (talk) 15:33, 27 October 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.