Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Definitions of knowledge

One AFD for two articles
Hello, I saw that you added a second article (Definitions of education) to this AFD. These articles are completely different, both in their topic and in their supposed issues. The discussion presented so far only concerns the article "Definitions of knowledge" so suddenly including a second article is very confusing. Shouldn't there be two different AFDs? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * bundling AFDs that are similarly suited is perfectly fine. PRAXIDICAE💕  17:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, this decontextualizes the previous discussion, which was only focused on the first article. Maybe (or maybe not) the case would have been different if both articles had been included from the start. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the only one to comment, so there's really no need to start a separate one. The same reasoning applies to both. PRAXIDICAE💕  17:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not obvious to other readers. The reasons for and against the deletion may be very different in both cases. So far no reasons for the deletion of the article Definitions of education have been presented. I'm sorry, I disagree with you on this one and I would ask you to move it to a new AFD. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * From WP:BUNDLE:
 * (1) Examples of articles which may be bundled into a single nomination:
 * A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles.
 * A group of hoax articles by the same editor.
 * A group of spam articles by the same editor.
 * A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products.
 * (2) An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately
 * (3) If you're unsure, don't bundle it
 * (4) For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion
 * None of the examples in (1) applies here. The points (2) - (4) clearly reject the use of bundling in our case. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I saw this listed at Third Opinion and want to say that 3O is not available for disputes of this nature. Third Opinions are for opinions about article content and are not available, in any circumstance, when another dispute resolution procedure is under way. This deletion proposal is such a procedure. Even if inappropriately filed or bundled - a subject about which I express no opinion - that technical abnormality will be resolved by the editor or administrator who closes the filing. The 3O request has, therefore, been removed (i.e. denied). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for the timely clarification of the issue. I was not aware that 3O is restricted to content disputes. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)