Talk:Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

Proposed merge of Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools with Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools
I'm not sure which page we should merge to. Obviously, these need to be combined because they cover the same case. I 'm inclined to move them to the Perez v. Sturgis because that's what the case is commonly referred to by. But the Luna Perez one is older. , I'd love your thoughts. Mason (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I have a bias. But I don't see why this article should not be deleted. It is not formatted to the supreme court case project templates, I can find nothing new it offers to the page I made.  The page I sourced has more reference and covered the topic in a much better/detailed method. I just think when the editor created his search did not turn up the other page. Jsgoodrich (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I (the other editor) want to talk through which page name to use. Do you know what the policy is for case names? This isn't about comparing the content on the page. Mason (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The title should be Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools in my view. Relevant guidelines would include the general policy of Article titles, and MOS:LAW's suggestion to follow Bluebook format. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted below the Clerk of the Supreme Court gave the full name to the case as Luna Perez, If you go to the Slip Opinion page, you will see how the clerk of the court formatted it.
 * https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22
 * The name of the original page came from how the Supreme Court named the case. It should stay and not be changed. Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the proposed deletion added, which wasn't called for here (and a CSD? why?). There's already a merge discussion, which is the obvious solution when we have two independently created articles on the same subject. Merge is typically to the older article, which can then be retitled as appropriate. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * > Merge is typically to the older article, which can then be retitled as appropriate
 * That seems reasonable to me. Mason (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway... I'm going to merge the content from the perez version into the luna version. Mason (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again it should not be merged nor name changed, The Supreme Court named the case with the full name. They did that for a reason. Look at the other case on the slip opinion page.   This article should be deleted.  Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm incorporating the sources and the additional language into the Luna version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1148512682&oldid=1148381664&title=Luna_Perez_v._Sturgis_Public_Schools&diffmode=source Mason (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... as I suggested I think that we need to thing about which page name we use. Also, I don't understand why were aren't just merging them. Speedy deletions don't apply when the page is a plausible redirect. --Mason (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * What is there to merge, there is nothing in this article that is not covered in more detail in the main article?
 * So why are we keeping a page, that was created in the last week that has less value than the other main space article?
 * This is why people get sick of wiki and stop editing. I am a lawyer that took the time to write and document this case.  Then along comes someone else and writes up a summary and  trying to debate which one to keep?  Really? (Yes I know I issued a logical fallacy of appeal to authority) however why is this an issue. Delete the this artice. There is nothing in it not in the main article.  Jsgoodrich (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We can play the authority cards if you want... however, it isn't productive for me to point out that I have a PhD and am a professor... so please please actually engage with what I'm discussing about the name of the article. Mason (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First if we want to compare degrees we can. I teach also I have 7 degrees and ABD of my JSD (Ph.D in law). If you wanted to change the name of the article look at how to do that and propose it on the main article. Don’t create a new article with the same content.  This is BS and I have no clue why this is a debate. Your article was created after a more detailed article, it offers nothing new. Why are we debating this.  Can you defend one line that is different or not converted in the main article.  Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I said it was pointless to compare our credentials. Mason (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your problem? I proposed merging the articles, because I didn't see your version of the article because it's name is not what I expected. Mason (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My problem is that when you create an article and pick a name that you look to the place of authority. In this case the Supreme Court. I want more help creating cases to help get the information out to people.  However, I copy and past the case name from the slip opinion because I want to make sure it is the full case name of the court. Not what is reported in the news.  This is because I am dyslexic and make typos. A quick check of the case name on the Courts slip opinion site was all that was needed. Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. You are making a lot of (incorrect) assumptions about my intentions. Mason (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
For whatever reason, a speed deletion was objected to. So now we do the full process. This is a duplicate article on wiki. It was made after the main article, which follow the SCOTUS project. This page was made after has less information, less cites, and offers nothing not already in the main article. There is nothing to merge.

Thus we should delete this article. I see no reason to keep it. If someone wants a one word redirect for the case name I don’t care about that. However the case was copied from the opinion as published. Jsgoodrich (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's nothing to merge, it gets redirected. What's the emergency here? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew. I'm happy to do the merging of the content, as the "Luna Perez" version article needs some serious copy editing. I just would like JSG to share his thoughts on the name of the merged article. Mason (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have stated several times the name of the article was as published by the Supreme Court in the slip opinion. So again this appears to be a moot point. Or maybe the author of this page just wants credit for creating an article deleting the one I created that matched the Supreme Court Case heading.  But what do I or the Supreme Court know about anything.  Devoting  14 years of my life for legal education (J.D., LL.M., LL.M., (ABD) J.S.D.) means nothing.
 * The user that created this article if he had an issue with the name should have proposed it in the talk page of the main article, instead created a duplicate article, with minimum information. Now wants to merge the work done on the main article to his? For what purpose?  I don’t understand this. I have so many articles get speedy deleted for the same thing, and yet we have two editors hell bent on keep this page why? Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop misgendering me. Mason (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any thing about pronouns, I saw Mason and made an assumption, because I have some male family with that name. I will refer to you however, you would like to be addressed. I meant no disrespect in that regard. Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the heading a done on the slip opinion
 * https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-887_k53m.pdf
 * Please also go to the opinion notice of the court.
 * https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/22
 * You will find the full name listed on the Supreme Courts website. This is normally because the court/clerk of the court thinks the name is too generic and will be confused with other cases.
 * Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * > I have stated several times the name of the article was as published by the Supreme Court in the slip opinion.
 * Where did you say this? I'm glad to see that you've now just sharing your expertise on naming.
 * >Now wants to merge the work done on the main article to his?
 * Ummm... no. I wanted to figure out what needed to be done about naming and merging.
 * > yet we have two editors hell bent on keep this page why?
 * The goal is to redirect the content. Please look up the difference between merge and delete. Mason (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you are proposing change the Name as published by the clerk of the court. For no reason. This article should be deleted. You offer nothing new, and your article is not the name published by the Supreme Court.  Why is this still a debate? Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC) PS I have been editing wiki for 16 years, and it is debates like this that have me stop.   Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * > you are proposing change the Name as published by the clerk of the court
 * No. I was asking what we should do because I did not know. Mason (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So if that was the question why did you create a second article and not leave a comment on the talk page of the main article? Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also what is there to merge? Please point to one item in this article that is not in the main article? Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refresh yourself on what merging is. As I've stated before, this is not about the content of the article. Mason (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We agree it is not on content and the name in the main article is how the Clerk of the court titled the case, what is left to debate. This article should be delete. We should place a note in the talk page of the main article on why the case name is what it is based on the Supreme Court naming. Jsgoodrich (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refresh yourself on what merging is. Mason (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't agree about the content, but that's not relevant to the question of merging vs. deleting. Mason (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, I did not see the Luna Perez version when I created the Perez version. Mason (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)