Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. I have been mulling this one over for some time. It's clear from the below discussion that the consensus is a question of if the subject meets

canvassed votes
, however due to the subject having quite a lot of views, it does seem somewhat natural. Some of the later arguments in this discussion do point to some sourcing that might be able to show if the subject does indeed meet our notability guidelines.

There is too many arguments from both sides here that are a little derailing, so I'd suggest any further discussions around this subject be made purely around policy based arguments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dream (YouTuber)

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dream (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Not expressing a view at this time on whether the subject now passes

biographical notability. However, an article that is moved to article space six weeks after being deleted (by a conclusive AFD) should at least be considered again by the community. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber), which was nominated by User:EnPassant and closed by User:Geschichte
.

This article is similar to my recollection of the deleted article, but I am not looking at the deleted article. The deleted article had been

significant coverage
.

Some of the editors in the recent AFD said that an article on the subject was

too soon, which may still be true. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep. After reading discussions here I believe that Dream's notability alone warrants an article on him. The reasons for supporting a deletion are as follows: non-notability, very little has changed over time, that this article was recently deleted, or lack of significant coverage/sources. Saying that Dream is non-notable is not true in the slightest. He held one of the largest streams of all time (in peak viewership), very much has a cult following online (his fans constantly get things on Twitter's trending tab on a near-daily basis, for example, past the point of annoyance), and wow does he have a lot of views. He is notable, and he is a large entertainer. Now, I understand to a point how the article has lacked substantial progression and reliable sources, however there is a strong counter argument that he is trying to remain as private as he can (despite how he may have inadvertently doxxed himself via a photo of his kitchen). Are there improvements that need to be made? No doubt, but that doesn't mean that is the end of the discussion and we should all go home. This whole discussion is about the potential to push back on that reasoning. Also, while it may be fair to delete a recreated article that had a deletion discussion, it's not reasonable to end all near-future discussions prematurely. There may be legitimate criticisms for the article, and there should be discussions about them. Does he fit some criteria for an article, and fail others? Yes and yes, but the latter must not be the reason to deny the former. In conclusion: keep this article. Some criticisms brought up here in this thread should not mean a delete. My original comment from before follows in the original form: Dream does meet
    self-published sources and keep it as-is. SWinxy (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedrunning and controversies aside, he's still made a profound impact to the gaming community as a whole. Numerous sources mention how his popularity contributed in a unique way to the resurgence of Minecraft, one of the world's most popular games. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not his content is scripted or faked is irrelevant to its value as entertainment. WWE is scripted, but that does not mean that it is not a unique, prolific or innovation contribution to a field of entertainment. Speedrunning in the normal sense plays a very minor role in the subject's published videos. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 06:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popularity or making something popular, and innovative contrubitions are two different things.--Visnelma (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Believe me, he definitely has a "cult" following, his fans are notorious online for their behaviour. 65.93.202.169 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: This article received 26,000 views yesterday, for what that's worth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Four of these sources are from Youtube, which is considered a primary source and an alternative should be found.
  2. FourTwo of these sources are from Polygon, which is reliable. The first source is a list, the second is actually a duplicate (so this makes three), the third is good, and the fourth is another duplicate, making that two.
  3. Dot Esports is reliable, with two references
  4. Sportskeeda is unknown, and should either be replaced or removed.
  5. PC Gamer is reliable, but mainly talks about GeorgeNotFound. This is trivial, and should be removed.
  6. HappyGamer is unknown, and should either be replaced or removed.
  7. Metro is unknown, and should either be replaced or removed.
  8. TechTimes is reliable, but is basically a guide, simply mentioning Dream.
  9. Two sources from ScreenRant, and reliability is unknown; it should either be replaced or removed.
  10. Looper is unknown, and should either be replaced or removed.
[🥪] 22:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • And now an even further look at the sources that are questionable.
  1. Happy Gamer is a blog website, with news from "gamers like you!" There is most likely a lack of knowledgeable and educated journalists here.
  2. I'd consider BBC reliable. However, this is just a list of people that competed in the Minecraft championships. I wouldn't consider this secondary source notability. His name is mentioned once.
  3. With Looper, I bet it just depends on who's writing. Elise Nelson is a freelance writer, so I assume she does not have journalism credits as much as others do.
  4. Matthew Loffhagen of HITC could be considered reliable; He works for the NF magazine, which features writers from Destructoid, IGN, 1Up.com, and other reliable sources. This one is okay.

[🥪] 19:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Screenrant is "inconclusive" in
WP:VG/RS, but yes, agree it should be replaced by more reliable sources. HITC is unknown but if Loffhagen as a journalist is credible it can be kept just for his writing. Happy Gamer isn't listed in VG/RS. Metro Gaming is unreliable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion of the sources suggested by Nsk92.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
For comparison,
Pewdiepie
, a Good Article, has 14 Youtube/Twitter sources in its references section and 29 Youtube sources in Primary video and playlist sources, making it a total of 43 primary sources. Divide that with the total amount of references in the article (375, 346 in refs and 29 in Primary video and playlist sources), time that with 100%, and you'll get that youtube and twitter source make up 11.4% of the references in Pewdiepie's article. The percentage of primary to references for this article is not quite far from that (4/21 x 100% = 19%).
Two of the Polygon sources are duplicate, making the math 4/19 x 100 = 21.1%.
[🥪] 17:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
In PewDiePie's article, the primary sources are largely used to expand on information already covered by secondary sources; you could strip away these primary sources and still have a decently comprehensive article. This is plainly not the case with Dream's article. Additionally, PewDiePie has received in-depth coverage from the New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal; you'd be hard pressed to find a high-quality news source that has not reported on PewDiePie. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spirit of Eagle: I know. I myself support the deletion of this article. I just want to object those who based the deletion on the youtube sources used in this article.
I’m aware. I was trying to tack on my own agreement to your comment; my apologies if the wording was a bit unclear. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you guys doing math in a AfD discussion anyways?
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 08:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
[🥪] 18:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Dream is a living person, meaning
WP:BLP's requirement for "the use of high-quality sources" applies. Before December 2019, Dream had two meaningful claims to fame: his participation in competitions and his invention of Minecraft Manhunt. These were covered in Polygon (reliable) and Screen Rant (arguably reliable: they maintain policies on subjects such as fact checking, corrections, ethics, etc. and their editorial team has some impressive credentials; from previous experience, I believe they have a good track record for getting their stories right). Using Polygon and Screen Rant, we would be able to write only a few sourced sentences about Dream's live before the Speedrunning fiasco; this would not include any basic biographical information such as place of birth, early life, reasons for becoming a YouTuber, etc. Alone, this clearly falls short of notability requirements. (While other sources exist, they were either primary, too low-quality to meet BLP, or repetitive). For the speed-run, we do not have any secondary sources reliable for intense statistical analysis (which is what the cheating allegation boil down to). While Polygon and Screen Rant may be reliable for Internet culture reporting, their authors do not have training in statistical analysis and merely regurgitate the claims of Dream and the mod team that stripped him of his record. Dream's only chance of meeting notability requirements rests in the speedrunning debacle, so I consider the lack of sound mathematical sources to be fatal to his notability claim. Thus, deletion is the most appropriate outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Since I've made the above comment, Dream has continued to recieve media coverage from reasonably reliable sources to the point that I believe that notability has been met. The sourcing was borderline when I made my initial delete and salt vote, but the continued coverage is enough to push my vote to keep. I do nonetheless believe that this article poses serious BLP concerns; we will need to keep it under lock for the foreseeable future and be vigilant that primary sources are not misused. However, these concerns do not affect my vote to keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHe is very popular among 12/15 year olds I am old by young people this age. I was doing a survey of people they rate as worth their attention as I am looking to invite the people to do podcasts related to a national educational project. So I think he is noteworthy and we need to improve the info. User:MarilynLeask 1 January 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilyn Leask (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being popular in a niche demographic is not a critera for notability. Mgasparin (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@80.192.243.40: You didn’t provide a good reason there. –Cupper52Discuss! 10:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Subject is not notable for anything other than

WP:ENT applies because the subject's fanbase is mostly children; you can actually tell this by looking at the patch history. To the editors saying that the subject has received sustained coverage, I don't agree; it’s an off-shoot of the flash-in-the-pan cheating drama. It will die down, and this article will eventually suffer the fate of most YouTuber articles—sourced largely to their twitter. It’s already got primary sources on it to source the subject's in-house "astrophysicist" (a forum post and Google Drive? really?). The coverage is really brief, and absolutely not sustained. If Dream's coverage returns after the cheating scandal has died down, that will mean the article should exist, but right now there just isn't enough outside of it to justify an article on him. ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

talk | contribs) 15:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:GNG
based on the sources proposed in this discussion. Comments should discuss whether or not this is the case, by explaining why these sources do, or do not, provide substantial coverage in reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If he's not ready to use his real name on the internet, then he's not ready for a Wikipedia page. It's obvious that this page was only published because of his internet fans, not because of his so-called "notability". WenaRamiro (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if his real name is known to be honest. I couldn't find a source mentioning it, nor is it in his videos. They just reffer to him as "Dream".
~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Lack of a "real name" is no big issue. For all that its worth, Dream could simply be named Dream, but he doesn't need to show his birth certificate to prove it. Missing information also isn't necessarily a reason for deletion, as it is BLP policy to remove unsourced content. All that we are discussing in the AfD is whether or not Dream meets the notability threshold. This isn't a debate on the quality of the article.
talk | contribs) 14:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
[🥪] 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep "Dream" has made one of the biggest impacts this year in gamming if not the biggest impact this year, simply going on google and searching up "dream Minecraft you get 144,000,000 results, even disregarding 90% of those results gets 14,400,000 results. He has more views, more subscribers, and more over all popularity then other Youtubers that have an article like Corpse Husband. Dream intentionally doesn't want much info getting out about his personal life, denning him a Wikipedia article because he doesn't want to share his name doesn't make any sense and If you don't how the article is structured then restructure it.--Garmin21 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue of the 'fraud' in regards to the speedrunning allegations is only for his personal best on Minecraft version 1.16, regardless of this allegation both him and the moderation team at speedrun.com have agreed that none of his other runs are under investigation. He also was able to go from 1 million subscribers on YouTube to 15 million in a single year, and this falls under WP:ENT criteria two and three. Some can also argue that due to the success of the Dream SMP, a survival minecraft server that includes roleplay and acting with him having a major role, he also falls into criteria one. In regards to the issue of his identity, while he has not released his full name, he has said on occasion that his first name is Clay, and in the streams with his sister you can hear her call him that. The issue with the 'recent' information is because he only started regularly posting on YouTube in July 2019. I agree with the fact that there need to be more reliable sources, deleting the page is not the correct course of action. Landninja19 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With these above comments, I think we're getting off track. The personal life details are not the reason this article is an AFD candidate. The real reason is the notability of the matter in general. Even if the Dream SMP is popular, if we can't find any reliable, secondary sources on the matter (
    [🥪] 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Dream doesn't meet
    WP:BIO criteria #3, Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. While he does have a significant online following, there just isn't enough known about him, in my opinion. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @ChekhovsGunman: The only thing that most people here don't dispute is Dream's contributions to gaming video content. He was awarded top gaming channel of the year ([8]); Polygon said he was the biggest gaming channel of the moment ([9]). Paste Magazine did the whole article about how Minecraft Manhunt is incredibly entertaining to watch ([10]). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: I don't disagree with your assessment he has contributed. I just don't think there's enough info available about him. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The unreliable sources seem to have disappeared. The very first time YouTube was cited, it cites only the creation date located on the "About" page of YouTube. This is technically a primary source, but it legitimately cannot be wrong. The second time YouTube was cited is simply a link to the video that was mentioned in the paragraph, which can be replaced with an external link instead of a citation. The article does cite YouTube's official blog, however, which I will admit is questionable. Polygon is the only other source that I know is unreliable, but there are only two of them. As for the Google Drive reference, I think it's fine. It's the paper itself that we're after, not the file hoster. If the PDF were hosted anywhere else, it would say the exact same thing and I'm sure no one would have a problem with it. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 23:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[🥪] 21:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete and salt. Subject is not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is, in fact notable, he has a lot of people who follow him. However, there is simply very little information in the media about him, and the wikipedia article needs more info. - Ry36 19:37, 5 January 2021 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.213.161 (talk)
  • Keep. What do you mean unreliable sources? We have videos that describe the internet personality he is. This wiki page isn't about describing who dream is in real life but about who the Youtuber is. The fan base and popularity, his interactions with tons of other streamers and YouTubers, in fact, the biggest of all things, "THE DREAM SMP". Dream SMP has been one of the biggest things in Minecraft over 2020 and we can't neglect dream just because he wants to protect his identity and no 'real' journalist has interviewed him yet. I'm sorry if I sound a bit upset but I don't know what kind of reliability you are looking for. I've seen pages on Wikipedia with citations from some of the least reliable pages and they go unseen. I personally believe the page shouldn't be deleted but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing and I don't know all of its details. I just hope that other, better Wikipedia editors can explain my viewpoint more statistically and technically. Wikipedia is meant to be there when other sources aren't. These are the kind of situations where this community is needed the most, to make a reliable page on the youtube personality i.e. dream and his achievements KaosElegent (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt, not notable for wikipedia yet. Maybe in 2 years or something. Sahaib (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dream is notable with a cult following, and Dream has been one of the biggest YouTubers of 2020. I agree with @2above, just because he wants to protect his identity doesn't mean he should be ignored.
    talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, clearly notable and is the best YouTuber of 2020 and also a very famous person with high networth and tons of subscribers and funny videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets
    WP:GNG. A lot of the delete !votes don't seem have included the burst in media coverage caused by Dream's cheating scandal between this AfD and the last one in their analysis, which IMO pushes Dream over the line. Similarly those citing stuff like there's not much about his personal life, name, or that it's all about Minecraft don't seem to realize that he's kept his life and name private (until apparently being doxxed in the past couple of days) and that he's generated this much coverage in spite of that. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete (Either salt or draft), Does meet
    WP:ENT but lacks a lot of information like his real name; and also, only one reliable source from Polygon? Half of the listed citations are about him cheating, that is not a good sign of notability in sources. One last thing, why is fanart the main picture and not his official youtube picture? Fixed. A lot of IPs are trying to keep this article, they possibly did WP:Canvassing outside of Wikipedia. PyroFloe (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@PyroFloe: The article received over 75,000 views in the last 10 days with those sorts of numbers the fact that a number of IP users have commented is hardly suprising. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bit of chatter on the Twitters about the article, but I could not find anyone posting a link to this page. I would just chalk this up to the fact if you Google the phrase "Dream" right now, you will probably find the article in the top results. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: I only assumed that they did canvassing, but with that much views from the past few days this month, I suspect that they are from the cheating scandal and nothing else, but yeah I agree he is definitely notable but a lack of reliable sources other than that cheating scandal is already a bad sign. PyroFloe (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PyroFloe: The guy gets hundreds of thousands of likes for random tweets on his twitter account, he is just that popular with his young fanbase. The article recently got linked to google's snippet about him (see this tweet), which I assume is the reason behind the spike, I think he is just popular, no doubt the cheating scandal has brough him more attention, but that was several weeks ago now, so it can't be used to explain the spike in the last few days. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna retract my claims of canvassing, but that spike is probably due to the MrBeast face reveal video I'm assuming. PyroFloe (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the MrBeast face reveal thing was much more recent and a likely cause of the spike, there's no doubt the linking of the snippet has also increased views though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt - None of the reasons for keeping appear good enough and this just seems like an obvious take to just delete the article. GamerPro64 03:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Given the detailed discussion above, "just delet[ing] the article" doesn't really seem like "an obvious take" at all. No matter what decision's made, it'll probably be a close one. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a biog with tonnes of references, but as we all know, just having lots of refs does not save an article from deletion. YT "names" can seem artificially popular due to the nature of the beast and this article does not convince me that they are genuinely important or notable. The rapid recreation of the article should also be taken into account. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I think we should SPA tag several of these IPs. Regards,
    Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
talk | contribs) 16:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
JackFromReedsburg: Doesn't mean we shouldn't tag the SPAs. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Beneath is my analysis of sources, presented as a collapsible table. I'm going to establish this right off the bat: I think Dream meets WP:ENT, and there is evidence of sustained coverage—not just for one event. The Paste article jumps out at me here, and I disagree with other people's assessments regarding it (see the table below). I've never seen a video by this YouTuber in my life and had never heard of him, but he has a substantial following, and I think will continue to receive sustained coverage. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
My recommendation is that this article should be Kept, but might need protection at some stage in the future. Dream's fans do appear to mostly be children and young people, and most will continue to add inappropriate things (likely with BLP violations) to this page (can discuss if/when that becomes an issue). — ImaginesTigers (talk)
Some of these need to be removed (absolutely). Most BLPs, unfortunately, contain things that should be removed. That doesn't discount the fact that I think this article shouldn't be going anywhere. It just needs monitoring. 50% of the sources should be kept. Of the remaining 50%, some of them are very easily replaceable, with other sources already on the article, without any additional research. Just because they should be removed also does not mean they were unreliable—it just means that they're trivia and don't need to be on this article. I have done no additional research; I am basing my vote on what I encountered in the reliable sources. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Site Supporting Analysis Conclusion
YouTube (the About section of his channel) The creation date of subject's YouTube channel Arguably isn't needed on the article, and should be (if anywhere) in a template. It is not supporting something controversial, so allowed. Satisfactory.
PC Gamer A particular video's events. PC Gamer is a reliable source per WP:VG/RS; Metro is listed as generally unreliable on WP:RS/PS; HappyGamer appears to be some kind of indie blog/publication. In the PC Gamer article, Dream being discussed as an individual, and he is very much mentioned throughout it. Although his name is a link, it is not a topic on the site (it links to his channel). Metro and HappyGamer should not be here, given that it’s a BLP. Satisfactory.
Metro Should be removed.
HappyGamer Should be removed.
YouTube Official Blog Dream being ranked by YouTube as their breakout YouTuber of the year, among other things. WP:VG permits primary sources to establish that awards were won. For example, an editor can use the website of the Shorty Awards to indicate that someone won a Shorty Award. As a result, I think this is fine as a reference. I am sceptical of its placement in the article, but think it’s fine as a reference. Satisfactory.
Polygon Establishing that Dream has become a big star this year. This one is used elsewhere in the article (and is about the cheating scandal). It establishes notability for Dream. Although you could argue this indicates that he is only famous for
WP:ENT
: "a Minecraft personality who gained millions of followers [...]" 		Satisfactory.
Paste A sort of profile about Dream and his "Minecraft Manhunter" series. Reliable source per WP:VG/RS. I disagree with what some have been saying on this one. This article is not just about his speed runs; it is absolutely about him. Some of these quotes are on the article, but some aren't. It talks about Dream as a particular YouTuber, describes his appeal, and singles him out a noteworthy Minecraft content creator. This is replicates in the article in a fannish way, but this citation is the single-best evidence that Dream is notable. Re: this being about his speed runs, it is not. It’s even in the title—Why Watching Dream Beat Minecraft Against the Odds is So Addicting. Satisfactory.
YouTube (one of Dream's videos) The name of the first video in the Manhunter series. The weird thing is that this is fine. Originally I was like, here we go, time for this article to hit me with some OR. Dream says that it’s a new challenge, and it is the first he's done it. That is true. The citation in the article is not about it being the first ever of its kind (although, from the beneath unreliable source, it does appear to be). This is an allowed primary source to reference something uncontroversial: that it’s the first in his new series. Satisfactory.
Tech Times Dream's Minecraft Manhunter series. The article would be satisfactory if it weren't for the fact that Tech Times is not listed anywhere as a reliable source. It does, however, say that Dream's series pioneered a particular type of speedrun, which I didn't know. Should be removed.
Polygon. Tertiary source for YouTube called Dream the biggest YouTuber of 2020. It’s a list, with no mention of Dream individually. What it does do is establish that Dream has a substantial following, imo, per WP:ENT (again). Satisfactory.
ScreenRant His participation in a competition. Have heard of this website; can't find it on WP:RS or WP:VG/RS. It establishes that Dream originated the "Manhunter" series (which I suppose was copied and became a kind of format among MC YouTubers?). Should probably be removed.
BBC. As above. Trivial mention by a major publication. Doesn't really need to be here, but I can understand why it is. He's literally just mentioned in a list. ??? Trivial, remove it
Dot Esports That he won two of the above competitions. Dot Esports is a reliable source per
WP:VG/RS
. That he won two major competitions does not indicate notability, and this is once again a trivial mention. 		??? Trivial, remove it
Dot Esports That he participated in a charity stream. The charity stream isn't all that relevant to me, but imo that article again demonstrates that he's notable (he's also in the headline, next to Pokimane), with it saying he is "one of the biggest names in the event". Satisfactory.
A PDF. Cheating stuff. Absolutely should not be here. There are reliable sources which have covered the cheating in detail; all that needs to happen is that this is replaced with the article from Dot Esports (below) or Polygon (below), which describe this from a detached POV. Remove and replace
Looper Cheating stuff. Have never heard of this website; can't find it on WP:RS or WP:VG/RS. Easily replaceable. Remove and replace
ScreenRant Cheating stuff. As above. Remove and replace
HITC
Dot Esports Cheating stuff. Reliable source. A run-down of what happened that treats Dream as a notable individual separate from the cheating. Satisfactory.
Streamy Awards Two awards, nom and win. Goes to notability and fanbase (Streamys are usually very indicative of a high fanbase), goes to WP:ENT. Permitted as an awards reference. Satisfactory.
    • I second nearly everything examined in this table. I think it demonstrates plenty of integrity in the sense of the debate. Also, regarding the citation of Dreams video "Beating Minecraft But My Friend Tries to Stop Me, you recognized it as "Satisfactory," but I have replaced the citation with an external link because I think it would work better in this context. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 00:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:LINKDD: Don't put external links in article prose. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jlevi: the PC Gamer article is from January last year. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ImaginesTigers. CaptainGalaxy 23:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:NO DEADLINE, so it is not necessary to drafity the article if the consensus is determined that the subject is notable, as long as it is fully protected per ImaginesTigers's recommendation to prevent IP users or single purpose accounts from vandalizing the article with potentially defamatory or unverifiable material. Haleth (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just a side-note: articles are protected because of ongoing, persistent damage to an article, not the threat of future acts. Right now, it's been stable for a while now. I've been able to make edits with no contest other than a discussion about the image (and that's fine and the way things should work). I just wanted to flag up that protection might be needed at some point down the line—I don't think it’s necessary right now. Without speculating on editors' thoughts, it certainly does feel like people might be voting
on the article's former state, at the very least. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I see. The reason I thought I'd bring it up was because I was reminded of the outcome from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang, where the basis for what was a well sourced and decently written article was a single notable event covered by multiple reliable resources, but consensus deemed it inappropriate for a BLP article as the coverage may be defamatory in nature, even if overall it meets the GNG threshold. Haleth (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: I absolutely agree that Wikipedia's current guidelines are very difficult to apply to YouTubers. I think WP:ENT needs some clarification and/or expansion, given the huge amount of people who are are now "famous", with significant followings, even devoid of coverage. This could be an RfC, at some stage. I genuinely feel that I could make a coherent, reasonable argument either for Keep or Delete in this article's case, but the sources point towards Keeping (somewhat). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bunching in social media personalities with other "entertainers" in WP policies, such as actors or musicians, is odd to me. Internet personalities, including but not limited to Youtube, Instagram... Tiktok ... seem to cover a different demographic and should have their guidelines, in my opinion.
    [🥪] 21:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps one way to resolve this, is whoever is going close this discussion, should only assess opinions and discussions which were made after Sandstein relisted the AfD on 3 January 2021? They did describe the preceding discussions to be overall very poor, so maybe less weight could be given to opinions expressed prior to the relisting? Haleth (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are generally pretty good at what they do -- I don't think they need to be instructed; they know good contributions from bad :p — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dream_(YouTuber)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1218593204"