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 speedy delete as a page "that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject or some other entity" per CSD G10. This should not preclude the creation of a neutral and referenced article on this topic. WJBscribe (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable and unreferenced; material is either a duplicate of the main article for the U.S. or unverified claims (e.g. "The current situation is better than in Alabama, Mississippi, or Arkansas, but worse than in Georgia or North Carolina.") —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, weakly. No, the article isn't very good as it stands. But not notable? I can't see how. Moreover, each US state differs strongly from the others in its laws and domestic policies; there's at least potential for valid articles about all 50 of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - it's a notable subject for sure, but with no references it can come off somewhat as an attack page. There needs to be some statistics and write-ups added before it's "live". ... discospinster _talk 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's a notable topic, but the current article is POV-laden original research. I don't see anything here that is worthy of being salvaged. Delete with a link to this debate, so that a future contributor who has sourced content to contribute will not be discouraged from creating an article. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the above. Cant be bothered to type it all out again. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have to say that I agree with Smerdis of Tlön. However, The article is notable, but it is unreferenced as well. I do agree on what Orlady said about a future contributor having sourced content to contribute and they won't be discouraged from creating the article in the future. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rewrite completely. Also think about making similar articles for other U.S. states. Template Master (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.