Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr DisRespect


 * 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 keep. Although some of the "keep" !votes are rather weak, there definitely is no consensus to delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Dr DisRespect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A Twitch.tv streamer and internet personality. But is he notable in the real world? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep No, he's not notable in "the real world", but he's notable in his field. I consider articles specifically about the subject from ESPN, Rolling Stone, Forbes, Polygon, and PC Gamer to constitute notability. Vermont (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It ain't a big article, but there are definitely sources available that make him pas notability. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to draft So it can be worked on in greater detail. --  Alex TW 14:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a notable, award-winning gaming personality. AndreyKva (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. I agree with you that this isn't anyone that is obviously notable, but taking a look at the references I come to the conclusion that there are enough sources in the article to meet our standards. wikitigresito (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dr DisRespect is definitely notable. He (probably) had the highest Twitch stream viewing ever (although this is disputed by Tyler1 & co.). Many suitable references are already included in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject meets general notability standards with substantial secondary reliable sources, as noted above in comment by Vermont. While the discussion about actual internet fame and notability is one to be had, they meet Wikipedia standards even if they aren't notable in other realms. But why would we apply said standard only to people known to the masses via the Internet? Why would physical people get a pass? In my view, digitally popular people can be viewed in the minds of far more people than any other physical realm. (IE: a baseball stadium seats 85 thousand people, and more than 4x that DrDisrespect had on a live stream.) It seems utterly dismissive. Combine that with charity drives that these people often do, and sometimes they can have more impact physically than one would expect. Tutelary (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see enough coverage and sources to justify his inclusion. Husounde (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.