Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Same-sex marriage in New England


 * 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in New England

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:OR Article claims to notability by asserting that New England is the place where same-sex marriage has the earliest support. This ignores Iowa and California and is not drawn from any polls and sources. The article is merely a timetable of same-sex marriage, limited to the region of New England plus one press release by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Hekerui (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Add to that the redundancy I mention below Hekerui (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am the author's creator and I will address your points.
 * A) You wrote that the article asserts NE is the place where it has had the earliest support, but has not drawn on any polls. However the article does not assert that, it says NE has been the place with the among the earliest legal support, which is true. MA was the first US state to have same-sex marriage (legal support through the judical), and VT, MN, and NH are the only US states that have brought about it through the legaslative - so hence among the earliest). As for it being the region in the United States with the most widespread (originally was the less descriptive word "largest") support, this is also true, no other region of the US has same-sex marriage in more then one state. - Epson291 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * B) You wrote the article ignores Iowa and California, that is not true, Iowa and CA are written about in the lead on how the only other two other US states with SSM has been Iowa, ande California (later overturned by the voters).
 * C) You wrote that the article does not source the claims of it having the earliest legal support, but yet all of them are sourced (I moved the sources up to the lead - they were only lower before)
 * D) You said the article is mearly a timetable, yes the article is arranged in chronological order, but so are all the other articles on same-sex marriage and indeed most articles
 * E) This is a notable article for that the New England region has thus far been the centre of almost all movement in regards to same-sex marriage. You wrote that it is WP:OR, which I assume you mean stringing it together as a region, which I understand, but I have addded some sources on it which makes it no longer only my opinion. There has been several sources specifically on the same-sex marriage movement in New England. For instance, the New York Times, which is as about the most WP:RS as you get in newspaper publications, did a very piece on this, and wrote how NE has been the centre of the SSM movement, and I've added this source. There has also been academic resoucres done on the subject matter, for instance here. - Epson291 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above. - Epson291 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:REDUNDANT The article is just a duplicate of info already found in the articles on same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage in the individual states, and the articles on same-sex unions, etc. Hekerui (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well you didn't respond to my comments about WP:OR, which was your reason for asking for deletion. But as for saying the article is redundant (and falls under WP:REDUNDANT), that is not true either. I cannot find any article or subarticle that focuses on New England's rapid leglization of same-sex marriage. This article contains information unique to New England. The fact that the states that have brought about same-sex marriage have been from the NE region hasn't been a coincidence, which is what several reliable sources have attested to/focused on. - Epson291 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - legalizing gay marriage in the region has become an important focal point of the same-sex marriage movement. --Mr Beale (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT Hekerui (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Except, it has been sourced by reliable sources (WP:RS) that in fact New England has become an important focal point of the same-sex marriage movement, which is not a case of "I like it" - Epson291 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Epson291 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Per talk below Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article appears adequately sourced (and even if it were not, deletion shouldn't be our default position, unless sourcing cannot be found). Further, the rapid shift towards legalization in this region has been extensively covered by the media, and would seem to be notable. While there may be things that need fixing here, deletion is not for cleanup.  B figura  (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are adequate resources specifically addressing the topic and included in the article to prove that it is not original research and more references are available. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Same-sex marriage in states whose names begin with A" would be OR because there're no sources discussing that as a topic in itself, but this article does have analogous sources. It's not redundant since it's not just a concatenation of "Same-sex marriage in X" for every X in New England, but actually talks about the fact that SSM-legalising states have been concentrated in New England and reasons behind that. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above -- it's obviously a connected topic, as there's even a dedicated campaign related to this issue. — Nightstallion 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because it has plenty of external Reliable Sources, therefore is not at all "original research" or "synthesis", and at this point i would say WP:SNOW. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are common features and histories of New England states that reliable analyses have examined to explain why various liberal social movements (including this one) have started there. Also, this adds structure to isolated articles for the better understanding of Wikipedia users that do not already have knowledge of New England. Fortuynist (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It does have some sense of POV issues, but that can be fixed. No need to delete something that can simply be fixed by revision. It certainly doesn't lack notability. New England was targeted for the 6 by 12 campaign. --haha169 (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable subdivision of the US. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  04:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  04:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  04:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Same-sex marriage in the United States. Lady  of  Shalott  05:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep per the improvements that have been made, really discussing the region as a whole, but as distinct from the rest of the US. Lady  of  Shalott  19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per Lady above. Do we really need it broken down any more than it is? It's already split into the 50 states, this topic doesn't need to be broken down by region if it's already by state. It's more overkill than anything. Too damn redundant. User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 05:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * New England is a very relevant region in the country for same-sex marriage advances. 4/5 of the states that currently legalize the practice is in New England, and another one is on the doorstep. It certainly has relevance and notability. --haha169 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was ready to vote merge before I reviewed the content. The lede should be cleared up to indicate which are the states of New England, and which are where in the effort. It may also be helpful if there are other civil rights examples of New England taking a lead role. Sources do seem to support this but we should take OR concerns to heart and clarify who is stating this is a New England initiative, etc. -- Banj e  b oi   02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the many additions and fixes per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Same-sex marriage in the United States. Seems like a redundant separation. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. It is a nice looking article, but simply unnecessary imo, when we already have the country-wide article and articles for each individual state.YobMod 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: However, New England has been the focus of numerous RS (ex. NYT The Globe   WTimes  Others  ), and satisfies WP:N. Since there are six different states with six independent articles it is impossible to allow for the relationship between the states to be focused on (for example, the "Six by Twelve" campaign to NE's part in history for the same-sex marriage movement in the United States, to all the reasons that the SSM movement has found success in New England, and to date very little outside of it (30 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and another 15 have statutes against it). As for the nation-wide article, it focuses on federal recognition and a nationwide perspective of states (including unions and partnerships). It does not make much sense to me to merge a perfectly independent and lengthy article with a specific focus into a general article. - Epson291 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Same-sex marriage in the United States. I was going to vote keep because of the New York Times and Boston Globe articles, but the content seems redundant (see Template:Same-sex unions in the United States).  APK  straight up now tell me  04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The content in the article is not redundant (except for the "by state" section at the bottom). This is the only article or subarticle which focuses and has sources on specifically the New England region. - Epson291 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as nom. Hekerui (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to either [Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States], or [History of States approving same sex marriage] or something of that sort. There is no reason to have an article only concerning these few states, while ignoring others.  I also find it odd, that it list that since the majority of people are Catholic, they support gay marriages, since long before the current generations were born they were discriminated against.  The Catholic church is officially against gay marriages.   D r e a m Focus  11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There are opinions stated above why the New England region should have an article (and not other regions), so there is no need to rehash it here.
 * 2) For your point about Catholics. New England is the least religious section of the country and like anyone else, do not necessarily follow the teachings and position of the Church. Regardless, that is an issue of content, it hardly seems a reason to include in an AFD discussion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will point out that it was sourced and not WP:OR, it is a reason stated by Professor Andy Smith, a political science professor from the University of New Hampshire. - Epson291 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on Image
 * Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg
 * To put it into perspective of why the New England region is so significant, here is a map with states who have same-sex marriage in purple, and those who don't in red. New Hampshire is in light purple since its all but certain (sourced by the NYT) it will be there. The purple part in the top right is also New England, I acknowledge there are seperate articles on these five states, but there is very little ability to understand and write about to the cultural, social, and geographical relation between them and reasons why SSM occured there, especially for Wikipedians unfamilar with the New England region. - Epson291 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Note - I have recently made additional improvements to the article, to the lead and overview sections. - Epson291 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Epson. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as mentioned by others the sources show notability for a separate article, as mentioned by others. SSM in NE is approx 17kb whilst SSM in US is about 46kb, so a merge will only create a sprawling article. Eventually someone would look at the merged article others are proposing and quite rightly think "Hey, the New England stuff would make a good article on its own, there are sources that support it, so lets split it out". I'd also note that the nominated version of the article probably only had WP:POTENTIAL, but the current one, is a big improvement. Bigger digger (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Considerably improved since nomination. The overview section is is good content and justifies its status as a separate article. William Avery (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2009 (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.