It's not a matter of what I believe. My belief has nothing to do with it. There were no reliable independent sources references indicating that they met any of the 12 points set fourth. If they did, in fact, meet #'s 4 and 5, where are the sources demonstrating it? Just you stating that they do is not an independent relaiable source. And if the noms had been left open long enough, I think the consensus would have agreed. Wikipedia is not the Hamster-pedia. If you're conficent that they were notable, you should have made a good faith argument in favor of keeping the article, not shutting everything down without any scrutiny.