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


 * 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 WP:ENT or WP:GNG. There does appear to be some questions on if this discussion was interupted by 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)

Dream (YouTuber)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

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 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 reference-bombed with low-quality sources. The only real difference between the two versions appears to be that this article has a combination of reliable and unreliable sources, including four references to YouTube, which is not reliable, and three references to Polygon, which is reliable, but the Polygon articles have not been checked for 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 *  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 WP:ENT criteria #2, Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, and criteria #3, Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I believe that so long as we get another (really good) source/article, that may be able to fill in a lot of self-published sources and keep it as-is. SWinxy (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, since Dream is under suspicion of fraud, currently his contributions can't be considered valid.--Visnelma (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Popularity or making something popular, and innovative contrubitions are two different things.--Visnelma (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Comment Here are the secondary sources used in the article: Sportskeeda YouTube’s big Minecraft cheating scandal, explained (Polygon) YouTube’s big Minecraft cheating scandal, explained (Polygon) Minecraft Speedrunner Dream Stripped Of Record In Official Verdict (SrceenRant) 'Minecraft Manhunt': How a 'Minecraft' Speedrunner Beat 4 Hunters Like YouTuber Dream Did (Tech Times) YouTube announces the top videos and creators of 2020 (Polygon) YouTube’s big Minecraft cheating scandal, explained (Polygon) The Minecraft speedrun drama explained (Looper). The another are primary sources. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 18:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Dream has a significant enough following that he qualifies under WP:ENT, but I agree sourcing is lacking outside of the Polygon articles. I don't think Sportskeeda counts for substantial coverage. Hemiauchenia. (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: This article received 26,000 views yesterday, for what that's worth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Subject still fails WP:GNG. KidAd   talk  00:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Still fails WP:GNG. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC); Superastig brought up a great point, we should salt this article for a while, because we will be spammed with this article creation. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 12:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the new developments and sources. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 01:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Specifically; Dream does pass WP:ENT; bullet two, only specifies a large following, not a following of a specific age. Dream has also received significant newspublications, and continues to do as we make this decision. While I dislike Dream, thats no reason to delete the article. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep Although I still think there's gonna be an issue with notability, I say keep per WP:HEY. Although very popular, significant coverage from reliable sources is still rather missing. Le Panini  [🥪] 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's my look at these sources.
 * 1) Four of these sources are from Youtube, which is considered a primary source and an alternative should be found.
 * 2) Four Two 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.
 * Le Panini [🥪] 22:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. If you considered sources with unknown reliability should either be replaced or removed, about 80% of the article that I created would be AfDed right now. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , If better sources exist, like ones that are confirmed reliable, why wouldn't you use them? Le Panini  [🥪] 08:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * should either be replaced or removed when a better and more reliable sources exist, if that's the case. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 09:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini [🥪] 19:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow discussion of the sources suggested by Nsk92.
 * Delete Agreed with the others above, article has not changed very much from the previous AFD and still fails WP:GNG. &mdash; JJ Be rs  07:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete just like last time this was AfD'd. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 20:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: Per WP:G4. Nothing has changed upon its recreation. I suggest this should be salted. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the fact that we are having to do this again when we just deleted this article last month tells me our current article creation process is too permissive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: At first when I created the article, there was little amount of opposition and also thought this article should be kept due to the increasing coverage. However, after a discussion between Hemiauchenia and Masem &  Gråbergs, I think creating this article is a bad idea. Support 's idea for salting the article so no one will do the same mistake as me. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I understand the above editors' reservations for preserving this article, I frankly find the idea of this subject not having an article to be ridiculous. By any sensible metric, this person is currently one of the most pervasive influencers on the internet's largest video platform. I definitely believe there is room for better sources and less bias in the writing of the actual content, but lesser media coverage in the traditional sense is not a good reason for Wikipedia to pretend this person does not exist. Technology and media as a whole is changing fast, and for this free, open, inclusive encyclopedia to stay beneficial for most readers, it needs to keep up with the times and understand the nuance behind subjects like this. Additionally, this person is reaching significant media coverage as of very recent because of a Streamy Award (official accolade from YouTube) and because of a developing speedrunning controversy. It would be a disservice to the average reader for unbias information on these manners to not be easily accessible. Keep the article, but instill a caveat until it's cleaned up and better sourced. Hermalez (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, the coverage of the alleged cheating is clearly SIGCOV in reliable sources, and the Tech Times article is also SIGCOV in a reliable source, meaning that this person is notable. There are also plenty of other examples of coverage, see here in Sportskeeda and here in Paste Magazine. All in all, notability is not even in doubt. I suggest the "Delete" voters actually look at the sourcing instead of automatically voting "delete" because this person's article was deleted a month ago. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT. This was deleted by consensus of the community two months ago. As noted User:Bearian/Standards, we hold YouTubers to a high standard of proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom. Chompy Ace 00:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt Take away the current sourcing related to the Minecraft speedrunning faking accusations (the BLP1E) and you're left with very little BLP-meeting SIGCOV. And while speedrun fakery is a far cry from anything that WP:CRIME was written to cover, this is still the type of thing we do go creating articles about. No place for a redirect that I can see at this time as well. --M asem (t) 14:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know nothing at all about Minecraft, but a bit of quick GNews seaching already shows plenty of in-depth coverage of the subject pre-dating the cheating scandal. E.g. Paste (magazine), Oct 2020 ; Dot Esports, July 2020, ; HappyGamer, Aug 2020; PC Gamer, Jan, 2020 ; Tech Times, Oct 2020, etc. YouTube listed Dream as the number 1 Top Breakout Creator of 2020. This isn't a WP:BIO1E case, and WP:GNG is definitely satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To evaluate these sources in terms of significant coverage about Dream rather than about speedrunning Minecraft, the Paste article is only describing some of Dream's speedruns and not Dream themselves; this is the same with the PC Gamer article and Tech Times article. The Dot Esports article is a simple announcement and gives no coverage. There is no GNG-meeting significant coverage of Dream themselves that we can use here. --M asem (t) 17:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's splitting hairs, and in the wrong direction. Obviously, Dream is notable for his Minecraft Youtube activities, and specific and detailed coverage of those activities absolutely does constitute significant GNG coverage of Dream. We don't need a news article about what kind of a cereal he eats for breakfast to have an encyclopedia article about him, we need coverage of his impact on the gaming world, and there is plenty of that available. Incidentally, for those still complaining about the lack of pre-cheating -scandal sources, here is another one, a July GameStar article about Dream and the impact of the 'Manhunt' mode he created. Nsk92 (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, here is a September newsarticle in Sportskeeda Dream: The Minecraft genius who’s breaking the internet, about Dream the person with some biographical info about him. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sportskeeda's model appears to follow that of Forbes contributors, in that while there are some editorial practices for fact-checking, it is not the same thoroughness we'd expect of a work with true editorial oversight, and they allow basically anyone to write for them. For a BLP, I'd be very wary of using that as a source. The Gamestar article is fine (its an RS for WP:VG/S, but again, it is about that mode and not about Dream. Article that briefly say "Dream is a popular Minecraft speedrunnner" and then spends the rest of the time talking about his speedrunning technique do not contribute to Dream's significant coverage as a BLP. So no, we're still looking for significant coverage outside the statement "he's a popular YouTuber" - we don't use popularity as a notability metric for good reasons. --M asem (t) 14:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The situation with Dream is a big thing right now that's still ongoing, and I think there's definitely enough media coverage to show notability, per the sources already on the article and new ones brought up by others. Waxworker (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Same User:Nsk92, Dream passes WP:GNG. The problem with the article is that suffer of recentism, focusing in his speedruning drama, and don't letting talk about his YouTube and Minecraft history; but it can be fixed. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 03:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Masem's reasoning is pretty spot on. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Nsk92. The previous deletion discussion seemed to be a dogpile without any real discussion of WP:NEXIST sources. Youtube naming him #1 breakout creator made me look twice. He clearly had a sizeable fanbase even before the scandal.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nsk92 and their additional sources, which show that Dream has gained significant coverage and passes WP:ENT – and not only since the cheating incident. 98.35.13.170 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete not even a prominent Youtuber. Mr. IP 49  [😂] 23:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's not prominent, just see the quantity of vandalism in the article history. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 15:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Dream is an incredibly popular creator, if not the most popular gaming creator currently, and the cheating controversy has received plenty of coverage from various gaming and esports networks. The sources in the article do seem lackluster, but not enough to warrant a delete. Some of the deletes here simply boil down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Pladica (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think anyone here hates Dream, in fact it seems there's more bias of people keeping because they like him as a creator. The delete votes are people mentioning he does not pass WP:GNG, which we have to follow. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is an essay, anyways. Le Panini  [🥪] 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, some of the deletes just felt a little biased to me. I personally don't even like him or his content, but I do think he's notable enough to warrant an article. Pladica (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, as this article seems to be doomed to remain a permastub due to the lack of secondary sources providing significant coverage other than that Dream is a YouTuber who is accused of faking his speedrun in Minecraft. Also, this information's recentism suggests that the scandal will be weakly relevant among the gaming community for a month or two, but irrelevant after a year.  Free Media  Kid!  09:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep His channel and influence are large enough to warrant a page. The article currently focuses too much on a few recent events, but as other users have noted, this is very fixable. LeBron4 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * His channel is popular, yes, but notability here on Wikipedia is measured in significant coverage. Although he has 15 million subscribers, all of these sources only have passing mentions about him, making the topic trivial. Le Panini  [🥪] 22:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT per above comments. A significant amount of the sources are just YouTube video links, and has not changed since the previous iteration of the article. Hummerrocket   (talk)  23:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A significant amount Only 4 out of the 21 sources are Youtube.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt continues to fails WP:GNG  and 4 out of 21 sources being YouTube is pretty significant for a article thissize and also other sources are unreliable as well not just the Youtube articles. also  a lack of secondary sources other then passing mentions saying Dream is a YouTuber 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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%. Le Panini  [🥪] 17:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Why are you guys doing math in a AfD discussion anyways? ~Styyx   Talk? ^-^  08:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , There are definitely other references here that can be considered primary sources, as well. The PDFs come from the speedrunning community, without mention in any other secondary sources from what I see, making these primary, too. Counting the PDF made by Dream, the math would now be 5/22 x 100 = 22.7%. Some of the Youtube sources were removed in the meantime, which is better, but the primary source issue still exists. Le Panini  [🥪] 18:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Popular, but poorly written, not enough media coverage other than the scandal --🔥LightningComplex<b style="color:dijon">Fire</b>🔥 17:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom. – Aνδρέας talk&#124;contributions 06:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep Since the last AfD, Dream has received weeks of coverage about his disputed speed run, yet many of the Delete votes insist that “nothing has changed.” This is a colossal oversight; I do not believe that these votes have fairly considered Dream’s notability. I personally want to review the sources in more detail before casting a vote, but I believe this is going to be borderline. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Being popular in a niche demographic is not a critera for notability. Mgasparin (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn’t provide a good reason there. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 10:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't delete it, he's a real person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.243.40 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)  — 80.192.243.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's some obvious WP:SUSTAINING coverage right there. Mind you; all this guy did was basically go outside and record a video of himself that was less than ten seconds long, but that was enough to get four different articles written about it. Is there enough content about Dream to make a proper WP:BLP here? No, and I don't think there ever will be. Dream has stated several times that he wants to keep his IRL identity as private for as long as he can, so even if a WP:RS posted information about where he grew up, his birthday, what his last name is, etc. It would not be responsible for us to publish it per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Secondaly, there is some arguement that coverage of Minecraft Manhunt or his speedruns should not be counted as coverage about Dream. I am sorry, but I just do not buy into that contention. That is all coverage of Dream's Minecraft/YouTube career, and therefore it can be incredibly helpful in filling out this article. The personal life section will probably only end up covering (1) his first name and possibly his family (ie. "Drista" if that gets mentioned in WP:RS eventually which it probably will), and (2) the fact Dream keeps most of his personally identifiable information rather private (which has a lot of details to it imo). &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC) *Delete. Subject is not notable for anything other than one event. I don't think 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)
 * Delete and salt per nom. Autarch (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep At the time of me voting the page is semi-protected. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 16:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. To be honest, I wasn't going to make a comment here one way or the other. However, there are some really poor !votes both for an against keeping this article, and I figured I should probably weigh in with something at least a little substantive. Two hours ago, this was published. Some amount of hours before that, HITC wrote this article. A day before that, we had this news story, and a week before that there was this.
 * GameRant is an unreliable source, according to Wikiproject video games (WP:VG/RS). I've also never heard of meaww or HITC (although that might just be my lack of knowledge on the cites). The meaww source is merely a compilation of twitter threads freaking out about his gloves, and proceeds to talk about the speedrun scandal, which runs foul of WP:SUSTAINED. The HITC article is supposedly fine, if more, reliable sources are talking about this doxxing. This one is just another twitter thread compilation. Le Panini  [🥪] 21:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:ENT and reasons listed by other users above. Even before the recent scandal, the individual in question seemed to be notable (even being listed by YouTube as their #1 Breakout Creator) and passes WP:ENT. Also, there's more on Draft:Dream (YouTuber). Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft is an old revision of this current article. A lot of this content was removed in the process for being trivial (such as the cat). Le Panini  [🥪] 02:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per Le panini. Mgasparin (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes #2 of WP:ENT, with hashtags about him regularly reaching the top of trending on twitter. While that is not enough to constitute notability on its own, I believe the sources that have been brought up in this discussion is more than enough. I also disagree with the assessment that significant coverage of Dream's work does not count as significant coverage for the purposes of ascertaining notability. If we were to pedantic, we can make the article about the YouTube channel instead of the YouTuber. <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 03:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say Dream is a notable enough person for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.180.13 (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per nom. Admanny (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ENT doesn't specify a fanbase "age". You cannot say that WP:ENT does not apply to Entertainers with young fanbases, until we get consensus for that. I personally don't think the google drive "astrophysicist" source should remain on the article, but Dream already passes notability. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 15:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The quality of this discussion is very poor. Let's try this again. This is not a vote. Comments like "delete per x", "delete because he's just a Youtuber" or "keep because he's very popular" will be disregarded by the closer. Comments need to address whether or not the subject meets 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.
 * Delete and salt per nom. TheRealDario04 (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * User:WenaRamiro Well, we have articles of thousands of people that haven't show his face or his real name (for example, we have Corpse Husband, another youtuber). And also, per second point of WP:ENT, one of the requirements for consider a person "notable", is having a huge fanbase. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 21:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim of "If he's not ready to use his real name on the internet" is not a valid reason for deletion. We have so many pseudonymous articles on Wikipedia. Also, the point above says it better, but WP:ENT point 2. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ENT. Sourcing could stand to be improved but there appears to be decent coverage. EDIT: Seconding analysis of sources below. I feel bad for whatever admin will have to sort through this mess. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment: (Note: I've already voted in this discussion). Dream is a young man who was recently doxed and whose greatest claim to fame is a dispute regarding his honesty and integrity. The stakes here are particularly high even for a BLP. More sources have been released since my first comment, but these are all low-grade; not even the "best" secondary sources have authors who can competently evaluate the statistical claims underlying the dispute. As a result, the article relies heavily on primary sources in violation of BLPPRIMARY. BLP emphasizes that "[w]e must get the article right." We are unable to do this with the current sourcing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:ENT #2, I think that the coverage from Polygon, PC Gamer and Paste Magazine is enough to pass the GNG, barely. The coverage of Dream himself in the Polygon article is non-trivial, demonstrating that his popularity stems "from his wildly popular speedrun videos, where he competes against other Minecraft players to complete the game as quickly as possible, sometimes setting records while doing it". While the Paste Magazine article covers his "minecraft manhunt" content, the source of his popularity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The page feels less like an informative article and more like a commercial screaming, "HEY WATCH DREAM'S CHANNEL!" In addition, the article doesn't even list his real name, one of the basic elements of a Wikipedia article about a YouTuber. This page is also missing tons of information. — Ð W (T•C) 11:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 14:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's better to debate against others where there's a point to. This vote is unactionable, much like the other "keep, because he is popular" votes. Le Panini  [🥪] 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 (WP:GNG criteria one), this article will cease to exist. Le Panini  [🥪] 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 ; Polygon said he was the biggest gaming channel of the moment . Paste Magazine did the whole article about how Minecraft Manhunt is incredibly entertaining to watch . &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 ├─────┤<sup style="margin-left:-5em">Talk <sub style="margin:0 1em 0 -1.8em">Contribs  23:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd consider these three PDFs to be primary sources too. The article would be in much better condition if more secondary sources had more to say on the back-and-forth PDFs in question. Le Panini  [🥪] 21:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Subject is not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete and Salt, not notable for wikipedia yet. Maybe in 2 years or something. Sahaib (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. User:NoahDavid771 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep. Meets WP:ENT and the sources available (e.g. Polygon, Paste, Dot Esports) cover the subject in-depth enough to meet 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep Meets WP:ENT criteria #2, maybe even #3. ~Styyx   Talk? ^-^  13:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should SPA tag several of these IPs. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , this article got over 68,000 views this past week, its more than expected to see several IPs contributing. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 16:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean we shouldn't tag the SPAs. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 ├─────┤<sup style="margin-left:-5em">Talk <sub style="margin:0 1em 0 -1.8em">Contribs  00:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm undoing this change. This isn't how to reference on the site. Read WP:LINKDD: Don't put external links in article prose. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak delete or draftify. The analysis done by ImaginesTigers is really good, and demonstrates that this subject has achieved significant coverage. However, all that coverage is in the last month or two, and I don't think it is possible to demonstrate SUSTAINed coverage now--the subject is just too new (I could be wrong, and will change this !vote if someone points out older coverage). This could probably be draftified and revisited in 6ish months. This appears to be a high profile individual, so it's totally possible they'll remain in the eye of the media. Jlevi (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the PC Gamer article is from January last year. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per ImaginesTigers. Captain  Galaxy  23:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per ImaginesTigers' comprehensive source by source analysis. The subject clearly meets WP:CCOS, so the nominator made a good decision in listing for AfD instead of a procedural speedy delete. For me, the key question is whether he should be covered as a standalone BLP article on Wikipedia, or whether only the details of his exploits and notoriety with the speedrun controversy should be covered in a relevant article with a wider scope. However, List of YouTubers won't cut it as it would place undue weight on that article, and there is no clear merge target per WP:ATD. I believe the editors who voted at the last AfD did so by following their own editorial bias as opposed to making a genuine attempt at objectively assessing the subject's notability. I also observed that most of the keep or delete votes on the current AfD has unfortunately devolved into a fan vs hater battle, even though there's a banner posted on the top pleading for editors to set aside their editorial biases, and it isn't helpful for the discussion. I am also of the view that there is 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)
 * 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)
 * I see. The reason I thought I'd bring it up was because I was reminded of the outcome from 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)


 * Keep: Changed my vote, per analysis done by Nsk92, MJL and ImaginesTigers. The keep arguments seem to be stronger this time. Article is good enough to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep (noting that I was the procedural nominator) - Occasionally an article has very large responses, both for keeping and for deleting, on an AFD. There may be at least two explanations:
 * The subject has received considerable attention outside Wikipedia, but there are issues or weaknesses with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and special notability guidelines.
 * The subject is famous for being famous or has a cult following.
 * Both of these explanations apply here. This AFD illustrates that YouTubers sometimes have cult followings, and that Wikipedia should recognize some (not many) YouTubers.
 * If a large number of editors think that an article should be kept, and a large number of editors think that it should be deleted, deleting the article may appear to the outside world to be censorship. It may instead mean that Wikipedia's guidelines are crabbed.
 * Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Le Panini  [🥪] 21:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I searched up "Dream youtuber" (without the quotes obviously) in Google and went to news feed and found a lot of recent results related to Dream. Dream has apparently been under controversy recently. His speedrun of Minecraft 1.16 were investigated and the investigators concluded that the luck Dream had on the video was way too high to be a coincidence, making the legitimacy of the video unverifiable. Dream tried to dispute the claims, but due to the weakness of his disputes, the decision still stood.  Dream was eventually doxed after a fake face reveal when people found his home address through Zillow. [ [[PC Gamer]] has a good summary of his speedrunning cheating scandel  and Meaww has a good summary of the doxing.  Before, I was kind of "eh" on whether or not to keep Dream (I don't watch his content and had not gone to search for existing sources until now), but now I firmly believe that Dream should now be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazman321 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While I had issue with the article when it was first named nominated, the work that since has been done to mprove it, combined with ImaginesTigers analysis makes me believe it is suitable for inclusion. Dream clearly passes ENT #2 and I think the sourcing concerns have been solved.  Asartea   Talk  undefined  Contribs  12:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per 's source analysis, it would seem that both GNG and criterion 2 of WP:ENT are met. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per and others. Dream has definitely recieved enough coverage to be considered notable. He also isn't just notable for the cheating scandal as 11 out of the 15 sources in the article don't even mention the scandal. X-Editor (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on some of the sources per WP:RSN:
 * Sportskeeda is contributor-driven website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Sportskeeda
 * Meaww is not reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_289#Is_Meaww_a_reliable_source%3F
 * Looper is not reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Reliability_level_of_Looper.com%3F
 * ScreenRant is inconclusive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_266#Screen_Rant but it's now under discussion again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_-_ScreenRant
 * Keep following source analysis - Multiple reliable sources have been brought forth demonstrating Dream's notability. <b style="color:#8c0f0f">RolledOut34 // (<b style="color:#8c0f0f">talk</b>) // (<b style="color:#8c0f0f">cont</b>)</b> 19:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems to pass the notability guidelines to me.  Giggity Giggity  Goo!  22:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment How about if we do a quick support-oppose headcount? I know it won't be used in the administrator's final ruling, but it would be good to do a bit of litmus test. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 06:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I counted 11 Keeps before 's analysis and 12 Keeps after. That's a total of 24 including Tigers's conclusion. I also counted 8 Deletes, all of which were preceding the analysis. -- Diriector_Doc ├─────┤<sup style="margin-left:-5em">Talk <sub style="margin:0 1em 0 -1.8em">Contribs  18:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Counting up all deletes in total, there's 24. Le Panini  [🥪] 18:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember you guys that his isn't a popular votation, but instead, a discussion among wikipedians for conclude if an article is relevant or not for it remaining in Wikipedia, so count the quantity of !votes (no matter if are for keep or delete the article) is not pretty important in this discussions. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 18:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Agreed. The page and the discussion have changed a lot since then, especially after User:ImaginesTigers' thorough analysis. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * Keep - Per analysis. Multiple reliable sources have covered Dream, and sources from Metro, HappyGamer, and HITC have been removed since 's analysis. However, the article still needs protection, because as soon as protection was lost/expired, unsourced editing and vandalism from unregistered users resumed, and some unreliable sources (Looper and probably a ScreenRant citation) still remains.  ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭ☰ ᐱᒍᐱᕬ   (Talk)  13:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Dream is one of YouTube's fastest growing channels. Subject passes WP:GNG and shouldn't be deleted.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  01:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability is mostly there on the article at this point, and I'm sure there's even more on gaming websites reporting on his rise and the speedrun allegations. His notability/notoriety is only going to grow from here on.  Ss  112   12:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, there's a kazillion of votes here and I wonder if the consensus has become "Keep" or something. <span style="background:radial-gradient(#eee,#ddd);font-family:courier">- ias postb□x 15:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it will just be no consensus. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well "no consensus" doesn't surprise me, considering that a zillion of articles fell into that fate. <span style="background:radial-gradient(#eee,#ddd);font-family:courier">- ias postb□x 23:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have enough RS to pass. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.