Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination)
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
— User:SWinxy, 06:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ENT||WP:SPS (Wikipedia:Notability)