Blood Red Throne – The original close of the AfD is endorsed as it was closed correctly. There is significant disagreement with the subsequent G4 speedy deletion and how G4 may apply in situations like this, but the issue does not need to be explored here and can be discussed elsewhere. The AfD result is vacated on the basis of new information, and the article has been restored. I would encourage the sourcing and information that has been presented here be incorporated into the article as soon as practical. Note that there is no prejudice to a new nomination at AfD at any editors' discretion (similar to a renomination of a 'no consensus' AfD close) — however I think it would be reasonable to allow a short period of time (a week, maybe?) for the new information presented here to be incorporated into the article, before any AfD is considered. That way, any future AfD can review an article which has this new information, as opposed to simply the original version that was deleted. Daniel (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Insufficient conversation took place about the possibility of redirecting the article with history to a band member. The discussion was relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Little green checkmarks and explicit voting outlines aren't discussion, bleating out an ATD isn't a veto when there's consensus that that isn't an improvement, and any such redirect would be deleted at RFD. —Cryptic 14:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A redirect was created on 9 November and incorrectly speedy deleted via WP:G4 by OwenX, the same admin who closed the AFD as delete, on 15 November. G4 does not apply because a redirect is not substantially identical to an article. FrankAnchor 14:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - I concur, that G4 does not apply in this case. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the statement and reasoning for why G4 does not apply to the creation of the redirect. Cunard (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should never G4 a redirect from a deleted article. R2, G6, G8, and even G10 might apply, but in order for a G4 to apply to a redirect, it would have needed a prior RfD discussion closing in deletion; an AfD on an article is not an RfD on a subsequent redirect of the same title. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. G4 does not apply to redirects created after an AfD as the redirects are not substantially identical to the content that was deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD result and explicitly allow recreation as a redirect to Bernt Moenstandalone article. The fact the AfD ended in delete does not prevent a redirect from being created. There was no general objection to a redirect in the AFD, only concern regarding specific redirect targets. Any redirect can go to RFD if a user wants to take it that way. Also, one user’s belief that any such redirect would be deleted at RFD is not a valid argument against creating a redirect. I believe the band name is a reasonable search term and would argue that point in an RFD. I would assume the history is insignificant for this page and adds little value to a redirect, though an admin can correct me if I am wrong. FrankAnchor 14:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modified in light of new sources posted below, there is enough SIGCOV to recreate an article. However, I maintain the G4 speedy was grossly out of process. FrankAnchor 15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the temp-undeleted version, the history is more in-depth that I would have thought. A restored redirect with or without the history is fine. FrankAnchor 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - I also support keeping the history in such a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as a standalone article per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Excluding the AllMusic biography and the Omnibus Press book, these sources were not discussed at the AfD:
The article notes: "the band that have become the native standard bearers for groove-laden brutality for over two decades: Kristiansand’s Blood Red Throne. ... From palpitating d-beats to full-on blasts, troll-on-a-rampage growls to flesh-ripping, having-a-moment-here screams, Blood Red Throne are damage incorporated, and the most fun you can have while watching your insides at the mercy of someone not exactly given to introspection. Having toured, Europe, Mexico and the US in recent years, with visual documentation to boot, the band have been focusing on writing album number 10. However if their new mini-documentary – detailing the band in the process of putting their new album together, and having more fun than might be strictly legal – is anything to go by, ‘focus’ should be used in the broadest possible sense of the word."
The book notes: "The new project of sometime Emperor bassist Tchort, Blood Red Throne was formed in 1998 and includes guitarist Død, singer Mr. Hustler, drummer Espen 'Beist' Antonsen and bassist Erlend Caspersen. Honing an act by rehearsing Deicide, Death and Obituary songs and recording the Deathmix demo, BRT scored a deal with Hammerheart and a debut album, Monument Of Death, was recorded. A limited edition 'Suicide Kit' version of the CD was accompanied by a razorblade and a poster, as well as being hand-numbered in the band's own blood. A cover of a Massacre song was recorded for the A Taste For Blood EP in 2002 and a second album, Affiliated With The Suffering, was released in 2002. A new deal with Earache followed a year later."
The review notes: "Blood Red Throne may feel that their exhilarating redefining of old-school values has been unfairly overlooked in recent times. As with 2011’s Brutalitarian Regime, this self-titled onslaught of precision bombing and hellish filth is as concise and devastating as anything produced by more high profile extremists."
The article notes: "A reliable source of death metal purity since the late ‘90s, Norway’s Blood Red Throne have consistently pulled off that neat trick of honouring old school values while embracing the precise crunch of contemporary extremism."
The review notes: "A consistent and reliable force for death metal authenticity since 1998, Blood Red Throne have never quite received the attention they deserve. Union Of Flesh And Machine may not make a massive difference, but the Norwegians’ eighth album is plainly one of their strongest efforts to date and a very welcome reminder that the basic death metal template still has the capacity to thrill and terrify."
The biography notes: "Blood Red Throne started in 2000, when bassist Tchort decided to start a project on his own after playing in some of the most popular Norwegian death metal bands of the '90s (including Emperor and In the Woods...)."
The review notes: "At a time when so may bands of the lauded Scandinavian scenes are moving in unusual, often questionable directions, Norway's Blood Red Throne are staunch traditionalists. With the album "Altered Genesis", Blood Red Throne eschew synths, clean vocals and poppish leanings to create 50 minutes of pure, unadulterated death metal, albeit with some thrashy flavoring in the riffs."
The review notes: "Norway’s Blood Red Throne have been kicking for over a decade. It is my understanding that the band is more of a side project effort than a full-time band—the group has had a revolving door of notable musicians. Probably the best part about BRT is guitarist Tchort, who has the biggest credits to his name..."
The review notes: "Blood Red Throne played pommeling neo-death metal to fairly unresponsive onlookers, which is always uncomfortable to see. Dawn of Ashes looked like the love-child (hate-child?) of Lordi, Gwarand Slipknot. Their ultra-theatric appearance made taking their blackened-death approach seriously a far shot, but I was entertained by the comment of "Take a look at the person standing next to you," now imagine slitting their throat.""
The review notes: "Blood Red Throne produce an almighty and groovy death metal that would probably sound more at home in theTampa Bay environs of Florida with its churning, down tuned riffage and larynx shredding growls. On Come Death, they eschew the technical advances which have made this once proud genre into a bit of a toothless beast. No triggered drums and no Pro Tools tomfoolery mean the visceral edge of their sound is bloody and intact."
The review notes: "The latest entry in the harder-than-you sweepstakes is Blood Red Throne, a group who incorporate some really wonderful riffage into their spraying-howitzer squalls. Document of Death starts off rather slowly but suddenly locks into the extreme-metal equivalent of an honest-to-God groove, a triggered kickdrum rolling like thunder under some of the most prime headbanging guitar real estate you'll hear mapped. The vocals are incomprehensible troll-under-the-bridge-isms, but that's what lyric sheets are for. What, then, of the lyrics? Well, they're simply horrifying and genuinely offensive: They're wholly misanthropic first-person murder/torture fantasies. You'd sooner hire Eminem to babysit your kids for the entire weekend than let them spend five minutes glancing over this record's lyric sheet."
The review notes: "After spending years toiling around in various death and black metal bands, Norwegian madman Tchort has started Blood Red Throne. Combining the lightning-fast chugging of vintage Slayer with the audio assault of Emperor, Blood Red Throne writes brutal, memorable metal that never loses its focus as it plows through nine vicious cuts."
The review notes: "BRT is arguably the most unique of all Tchort's endeavors, but only because it involves death instead of black metal, his regular domain. In all other respects, 2007's Come Death is, like all BRT releases before it, a straight-up genre exercise, well-intentioned and well-executed but lacking the thrill of innovation so much as the comfort of familiarity."
The article notes: "Norwegian vets Blood Red Throne have come a long way from the days when they were simply known as “that death metal band with the dude who played on In the Nightside Eclipse.” In truth, they developed into a death metal killing machine ages ago, long before Tchort left the band in 2010. They’ve recorded four full-lengths since then, including their latest, Fit to Kill, which will be be their debut for Danish powerhouse Mighty Music."
The review notes: "Norway's Blood Red Throne has always done a fine job of playing a decidedly American (Floridian in particular) style of death metal, but stopped just short of breaking into the upper echelon of the genre. Consider "Come Death" the breakthrough for which we've been waiting. Tchort ... and company took their time and did it right. In so praising the album, I am not saying that it raises the death metal bar, only that is a damn strong release that fans will thoroughly enjoy."
The review notes: "Blood Red Throne has been cranking out what I guess you could call “true Norwegian death metal” for almost 25 years. Formed, oddly enough, by veterans of Norway’s then-notorious black metal scene – Satyricon touring guitarists Daniel “Død” Olaisen and Terje Vik “Tchort” Schei, who also played with Emperor and Carpathian Forest – the quintet has been productive and fairly dependable for its entire run, despite a dozen or so lineup changes, and several vocalists, along the way."
The review notes: "It's hard to believe it's been 15 years since Blood Red Throne's debut. With a handful of lineup changes since, the Norwegian stalwarts have delivered Union of Flesh and Machine, their eighth album. These dudes have always had a white-knuckle grip on groove when they choose to employ it, but here it's the sticking point."
The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "This is a band from Norway that more people should know about. Their whole discography has bangers so it’s hard to recommend just one record, but my favorites are Union of Flesh and Machine and Come Death."
The EBSCO Information Services entry does not have the text of the article. The entry notes that this article is a music review of the Blood Red Throne album Union of Flesh and Machine.
Reply - I am not opposed to restoring Altered Genesis as a full article, nor am I opposed to restoring it as a redirect to Blood Red Throne, or one of its band members. I would suggest phrasing the conversation as a split proposal from a relevant article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of this discussion needs to be limited to Blood Red Throne only. A separate discussion at DRV or a request for undeletion can be made for Altered Genesis, citing the additional references. FrankAnchor 16:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate AfD in light of Cunard's sourcing. We don't have a procedure for this, and maybe we should, but when the sourcing brought up in a DRV demonstrates that an AfD was so sourcing-deficient that a reasonable editor could not have been expected to understand the actual notability and thus the closer not review a reasonable, policy-based discussion, maybe we should just pretend it never happened. Obviously, we don't want the same people relitigating an AfD at DRV, but when an outside party demonstrates so conclusively how bad the discussion was, that's not the same thing. If you want simpler binary responses... OverturnJclemens (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see a couple of participants here who believe the consensus of an AfD can be vetoed by anyone who wishes to revive the article as a redirect, because, according to them, CSD:G4 doesn't apply to redirects. I'm sure the authors of the CSD:G4 policy would be surprised to learn of this interpretation. If you believe an AfD was closed improperly, say so. But if you believe you are above policy and consensus because you !voted "Redirect" on that AfD, I'm afraid that's not how this project works. Owen×☎ 19:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G4 specifically excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. A redirect is not in any way, shape, or form, substantially identical to the version of the article (which was not a redirect). I don’t see any way a person could interpret G4 to cover a redirect when the deleted version was not a redirect. FrankAnchor 00:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frank Anchor's interpretation of the policy. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX, Yeah, you're very wrong on the G4 policy here; see my note above in the discussion. Unless a redirect was itself G10 able, the main question about a post-AfD redirect is whether or not it should have the contents of the deleted article in history. If you delete a G11-eligible article about a CEO but he's mentioned at his company's article, that might be a good reason to leave history deleted with a redirect. For most deletions on the basis of non-notability with a good redirect target (fiction and popular culture, for instance), leaving the history intact is preferred because it allows non-admins to review the history for improvement and possible un-redirection if and when it demonstrate notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: if the AfD consensus was against turning the page into a redirect, e.g. because the proposed target was inappropriate, any editor can ignore the AfD result and recreate the page as a redirect, just because the history was wiped? Then why bother with consensus at all? Instead of !voting "Redirect", just say, "Decide whatever you wish, I'll still recreate the page as a redirect, because G4 doesn't apply to redirects". Sorry, you can't just circumvent G4 and an AfD consensus against a redir because you intentionally misread CSD:G4. The new redirect is substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD, and decided against. Don't try to lawyer your way around consensus. Owen×☎ 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there was not consensus against redirect. There was disagreement about a redirect target but not opposition to a merge/redirect in general. Second, even if that was not the case, G4 does not cover redirects when the previous version was an article. G4 says the article must be substantially identical to the deleted version, not substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD. Quoting a policy is not “lawyering.” I also did not intentionally misread G4, nor did several other voters in this DRV. Please strike those false claims from your statement. FrankAnchor 13:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX, please confirm that you now understand that G4'ing a redirect as you did in this case is not covered by the speedy deletion policy. I realize that the discussion you closed was of quite poor quality, but the AfD deletion of an article without a redirect doesn't entitle anyone to G4 a redirect of the same name. That's what MfD is for. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's disheartening to see an experienced editor like you jump on the "substantially identical" loophole bandwagon. We can debate whether or not that AfD ended in a consensus. But if we accept that a consensus was reached, that consensus was clearly against turning the page into a redirect. You can't show up the next day and decide, unilaterally, to enforce your !vote and turn it to a redir anyway. That's not WP:BOLD, it's going against consensus, which is exactly what G4 is meant to address. If what you suggest were true, there would be no point in !voting "Redirect" on any AfD, as you could always show up after the fact and turn the deleted page into a redir, regardless of any consensus against such an action. Owen×☎ 18:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are not substantially identical to the articles being deleted, that much seems straight forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 and treat Cunard's comment as the actual challenge to the AfD, despite it not being him starting the process (it doesn't matter). Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. No fault of the closer.—Alalch E. 22:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re the CSD:G4 red herring: in the AfD, Jax 0677 proposed the page be turned into a redirect to one of the band members. They even started a straw-poll, right in the AfD, which didn't garner much support, and rightly so: redirecting a band name to one of its members is not something we normally do here.
Consensus ended up marginally in favour of deleting the page, and I closed it as such. Jax 0677 wasn't happy with the result, and rather than taking it to DRV, they recreated the page the following day as a redirect, going against the AfD outcome. Using CSD:G4 for its intended purpose, I deleted the out-of-process recreation, and advised Jax 0677 to discuss things on DRV, which is why we're here.
Some here are now WP:LAWYERING about some hidden meaning of "substantially identical" in CSD:G4. To be clear: the redirect created by Jax 0677 is identical to the one they proposed--and got rejected--in the AfD. A "#redirect Ronny Thorsen" isn't the substantially different content CSD:G4 talks about in recreating a deleted article. Anyone claiming differently is being disingenuous.
The purpose of G4 is to ensure AfD consensus is followed. If you believe that anyone who isn't happy with the outcome of an AfD is free to recreate the deleted article as a redirect, by all means, let's start an RFC about G4 and the entire AfD process, as this would be a major departure from how things have been done for the past 20 years. Owen×☎ 19:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my interpretation, and the interpretation of several others here, is the actual text of the policy is what is to be used. G4 makes no mention of ensur[ing] AfD consensus is followed, it only makes reference to recreation of sufficiently identical page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. My interpretation, and the interpretation of several other users, is that a redirect is not substantially identical to the deleted version, an article. I will reiterate, G4 does not cover redirects when the previous version was an article. G4 says the article must be substantially identical to the deleted version, not substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD. There is no hidden meaning of substantially identical. A reddirect is vastly different from an article. However, Owenx decided to ignore my previous response and continued to WP:BLUDGEON their own point of view and accuse those of enforcing the actual words of a policy of WP:LAWYERING even though that essay states simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer. Again, I am requesting Owenx strike those obviously false accusations of intentionally misread[ing] G4 and of lawyering, or I will consider taking this to ANI. FrankAnchor 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! Please take this to ANI. We could use the added participation. I also opened a policy RfC on this subject. Owen×☎ 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's recommendation in an AfD to redirect the page as an alternative to deletion that, subsequently, does not correspond to the AfD outcome has nothing to do with the possibility of creating a redirect at the name of a deleted page. When the AfD outcome is 'delete', it's fine to create whatever redirect at that name afterwards. If the redirect is a bad redirect, editors may form a consensus to delete it in an RfD. G4 doesn't apply to a redirect created at the name of a deleted article. The reasons to delete an article and to delete a redirect are different. G4 only applies to pages for which the same type of consensus applies. See the its most recent deletion discussion. It needed to be the page's deletion discussion. An AfD is not a redirect's deletion discussion. An RfD would have been the redirect's deletion discussion, but there was no RfD. There was no deletion discussion. G4 did not apply. The only thing that's the same in this situation is the name, and G4 is not about the name. You can see that by reading WP:G4 (having any title). It is about whether a page is a sufficiently identical copy. A redirect is never a sufficiently identical copy of an article. Your G4 was incorrect, you did wrong, and Jax 0677 did okay to pursue his idea, and maybe the redirect was a bad redirect, but that's for RfD to settle, not for you individually.Ultimately, the G4 angle is inconsequential, because what should happen is the AfD deletion being overturned because of DRVPURPOSE#3, per my above comment. —Alalch E. 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
