Deletion of Same-sex marriage in New England

Comment: However, New England has been the focus of numerous RS (ex. NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us/05marriage.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss The Globe http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/11/nes_identity_bolsters_gay_marriage_tolerance/?page=1 http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/03/24/same_sex_marriage_bills_gain_in_ne/ WTimes http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/04/gay-marriage-backers-target-new-england/ Others http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2009/05/07/New-England-leads-on-samesex/1241751933.html http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=386050), and satisfies . 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: because it has plenty of external Reliable Sources, therefore is not at all "original research" or "synthesis", and at this point i would say '''
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: due to the many additions and fixes per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_New_England&oldid=290061573 nominated version of the article probably only had , but the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_New_England&oldid=291187719 current one, is a big improvement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state (WP:POTENTIAL)