All sources have been stated. Last creation was 2008. Band was not nearly as relevant as they are now and all independent references are valid. Darkrider11 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, article meets criteria for sections #1 (distribution via iTunes, HMV, Chapters and online distro, etc.), #2 (songs were in regular rotation across mainstream radio as well as college and internet radio -- CJSW, x929, The Bear, ect.), #4 (performed both Vans Warped Tour and Taste of Chaos. Media coverage documented), #7 (band was well known and is cited by many local musicians as an influence), #8 (awarded Hard Rock album of the year via Just Plain Folks Awards/Organization in Nashville), #9 (Vans Warped Tour and Taste of Chaos), #11 (songs "Juniper" and "Wrapped Around a Bullet" received national rotation in Canada) of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Darkrider11(talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some problems with your aplication of the criteria. #1 concerns published works about the band, not the band's own musical works and their distribution. #2 concerns presence on a national chart (like Billboard, for example), not merely radio play. For #9, you've given names of events, but you haven't said whether the events were competitions, and, if so, whether this band won or placed in them. Lastly, for #4, #7, #8, and #11, you'll have to verify those assertions.
So you've got some work to do. My suggestion is that you ask for the article to be userfied to you, that you work on it, and when it's ready, submit it through the Articles for Creation process. Would you accept that solution? --Bsherr (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy as G4 - WP:A7 doesn't apply (importance = "In 2009, Somastate was awarded Hard Rock album of the year for their sophomore release Reversals"). However, WP:G4 seems to apply in view of the cache'd article and the AfD. I'm not sure what the DRV nominator statment "All sources have been stated" means. I found few sources only consisting of "Somastate will be playing at" type info. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G4 would only apply if the 2011 article is substantially the same in content as the one that was the subject of the AfD. Do you know this to be? --Bsherr (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to criterion for speedy deletion number G4, so am I. Incidentally, what's the difference between the two? --Bsherr (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I created this category without knowing that it previously existed after I saw Category:500 home run club. The consensus to delete this was pretty weak four years ago and it doesn't seem compelling to me now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Given the FL status of 3,000 hit club and the discussion of this group in reliable sources, I don't think the criteria is arbitrary. ThemFromSpace 05:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion The 3,000 hit club is a rather well-defined and broadly accepted criteria for baseball players. To add to matters, the CfD from March 2007 that's being used as a basis for speedy deletion is rather questionable. The consensus among the participants four years ago was rather clear for retention of the category and the closer's rationale that this information is better served by a list and therefore had to be deleted is not based on policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - after looking at the CfD discussion, I would definitely agree there was no consensus to delete this category in the first place. The case put forward by the keep !voters seemed particularly strong. Bettia(talk) 15:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely pointless to "overturn" a CFD from nearly four years ago. Our rules and standards were very different then. I would permit creation of this category, but I don't see any value in reviewing such a long-dead discussion.—S MarshallT/C 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Permit creation per all above. ReykYO! 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
allow creation- the original delete rationale was extremely weak. That anyone managed to find reason to agree with it surprises me. There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have a category for this. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Permiot creation. No real need of another discussion right now. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion - There was no consensus to delete this category. Also, Wikipedia makes much use of multiple navigation techniques for a given topic and even if an article covers material far better and more comprehensively that as category is not a basis to delete a category. Little thought went into WP:G4 speedy deletion, so trout wack to the speedy deleting admin. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per DGG and S Marshall. There is not point in overturning a delete result from over 4 years ago, especially in a set of different circumstances. –MuZemike 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. A milestone accomplishment worthy of a category, which was somehow discounted in the CfD closure. Notwithstanding, it should have closed as no consensus, but there's no sense in overturning it years later. --Kinut/c 03:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
