Deletion of Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Dream doesn't meet  criteria #3, {{tq|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Passes #2 of , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Per Nsk92. The previous deletion discussion seemed to be a dogpile without any real discussion of  sources. Youtube naming him #1 breakout creator made me look twice. He clearly had a sizeable fanbase even before the scandal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: and . This was deleted by consensus of the community two months ago. As noted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber)|the last AfD. Subject still fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . Sourcing could stand to be improved but there appears to be decent coverage. EDIT: Seconding {{u|ImaginesTigers}} analysis of sources below. I feel bad for whatever admin will have to sort through this mess
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Agreed with the others above, article has not changed very much from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber)|previous AFD and still fails . &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: subject passes  and , 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 https://www.sportskeeda.com/minecraft/5-best-minecraft-players-2020 here in ''Sportskeeda'' and https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/minecraft/speedrunner-dream-manhunter-minecraft-series/ here in ''Paste (magazine)|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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 https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/minecraft/speedrunner-dream-manhunter-minecraft-series/; Dot Esports, July 2020, https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/dream-and-technoblade-team-up-for-mc-championship-8; HappyGamer, Aug 2020https://happygamer.com/youtubers-dream-and-georgenotfound-have-created-a-way-to-have-damage-in-real-life-when-damaged-in-minecraft-76782/; PC Gamer, Jan, 2020 https://www.pcgamer.com/watch-this-minecraft-player-get-shocked-by-a-dog-collar-whenever-he-takes-damage/; Tech Times, Oct 2020 https://www.techtimes.com/articles/253486/20201020/minecraft-manhunt-how-a-minecraft-speedrunner-beat-4-hunters-like-youtuber-dream-did.htm, etc. YouTube listed Dream as the number 1 Top Breakout Creator of 2020https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/1/21726748/top-youtube-videos-2020. This isn't a  case, and  is definitely satisfied here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:GNG)

Comment: as this article seems to be doomed to remain a ermastub|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 ecentism|recentism suggests that the scandal will be weakly relevant among the gaming community for a month or two, but irrelevant after a year
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:SECONDARY||WP:R)

Comment: Dream is one of YouTube's fastest growing channels. Subject passes  and shouldn't be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per {{np|ImaginesTigers}}'s source analysis, it would seem that both |GNG and criterion 2 of  are met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ENT)

Comment: Masem's reasoning is pretty spot on. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: Meets  and the sources available (e.g. Polygon, Paste, Dot Esports) cover the subject in-depth enough to meet . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: per  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 . Also, there's more on Draft:Dream (YouTuber
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:ENT)

Comment: Meets  criteria #2, maybe even #3
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: At the time of me voting the page is |semi-protected
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SEMI)

Comment: Does meet  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 anvassing outside of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:C)

Comment: 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 https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1348802233765416960 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 https://gamerant.com/dream-face-reveal-youtube-dox/ 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  criteria #2, {{tq|Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following}}, and criteria #3, {{tq|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT||WP:SPS)

Comment: continues to fails   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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: Dream has a significant enough following that he qualifies under , but I agree sourcing is lacking outside of the Polygon articles. I don't think Sportskeeda counts for substantial coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)