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 Delete; I note the Keep comments, but the Delete consensus is overwhelming. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Keem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable youtuber/streamer. Fails GNG and all sources are either unreliable (Reddit etc), self-published or passing mentions in articles about other subjects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG benchmark. GAB^gab 02:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although there looks to be plenty of references that mention or speak of this article subject, very few (like this one, this one, and this one) cover the article subject in-depth (and some of them cover an event, really). Significant coverage is not established here; there isn't enough reliable sources that cover the article subject primarily and in-depth to be able to create an article about this person without the use of original research, which is required to be established before WP:GNG can be met. This person's focus area can be debated as to whether he's considered an entertainer or a creative professional; either way you look at it, this article subject fails the notability requirements for both. Hence, I am voting delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Oshwah. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 03:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is extremely notable in the youtube community as every youtuber knows about him. There was a petition to ban Keemstar from youtube, that has gained over 50,000 subscribers which is a lot considering how small the YouTube community is. There have been videos made on Keemstar including Phillip DeFranco, Yousef Erakat, GradeAUnderA and h3h3 Productions who have close to 14 million subscribers collectively. Alot of people may want the Wiki page removed due to personal reasons, but not everyone can be happy with a page Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to put in perspective - 1.46 million subscribers vs 4.78 million - Merely having a lot of subscribers does not make someone notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If you watch youtube, than you would know who Keemstar is. Keemstar is more notable than NikkieTutorials since he is covered by so many different fanbases. No one knows who Nikkie is, since she doesn't she create drama (which is why Keemstar is notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Completely article is not bad but unfortunately some information is missing, I'm disappointed but youtube search for some of the missing. Junior5a (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oshwah's analysis. GNG is not satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Side note - To User:Oshwah: just because there aren't enough references doesn't make a wiki page up for deletion. If there aren't enough good references than you can use the "citation needed" tag. Hawkeye75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's get roiiiight into delete. There needs to be reliable third party sources before we could even get into this. _{Perhaps a merge with Gnome?} --Adam in MO (talk)
• Adam in MO is trolling, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye75 - I understand that you're frustrated over this AfD discussion and that the wording in adamfinmo's response might have upset you, but he was not trolling or being disruptive. The best thing you can do to learn and gain positive experience from this is to read the guidelines and policies that are linked within the votes here, and use them to understand the rationale behind the reason. Nobody here is disagreeing with your vote and the outcome you'd like to see happen because they want to discourage you or drive you away; they're simply using their experience to follow policy and improve the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think you should be allowed to just use a "per user" on a deletion page. You should have to voice your own opinion and not just stand behind other's opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye75 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with another editor's rationale and citing that explanation in their own statement is perfectly fine to do. While it may not be an explanation from their own words, their input is still helping the discussion achieve its primary goal: coming to a consensus. So long as the input is supporting the process of achieving consensus, the method in which it is actually doing so matters much less. Remember: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote "tally" does not matter whatsoever; it just happens to be the format that this project area chooses to communicate in. It is the statements behind the vote that do matter. If someone wishes to cite another editor's response as their own, it supports the bottom line of this discussion. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OshwahTo be fair I was teasing a little. People familiar with Keemstar would be familiar with the jokes. I stand by my honest critique. I have had hours of entertainment from Keemstar's videos but he just doesn't have any coverage from mainstream sources. As much as I would personally like to see an article on him (and I do), he simply doesn't meet the criteria for acceptance. Hawkeye75 when approaching a community discussion editors should always read the comments that have been left thoughtfully and thoroughly. You'll often find a seasoned editor has posted a link to a policy or something in the MOS that might change any knee-jerk reaction that you may have. There is no shame in agreeing with a previous statement. That is how consensus is done. I also see that you are new to the project, and should this AFD end in way that you would not favor I hope that you will stick with us. Often it is in a new editor's first conflict or deletion that they learn the most about how we build and encyclopedia.--Adam in MO Talk 02:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamfinmo couldn't have said it any better :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable youtube "star". There is literally thousands of people just like him on Youtube and Twitch. Not all of them deserve an article. Luckily we have GNG to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Nothing in searching google shows reliable secondary sources talking about this guy. All I can find is stuff like this [1]. If being famous for starting feuds with other strangers on youtube is the bar for inclusion to Wikipedia, then everyone who has used the internet in the past 15 years should be on here. Valeince (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Per Oshwah.--Yufitran (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG and other applicable notability guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No mass following; has made no unique contribution. Fails WP:ENT. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Has been talked about by many reliable sources: article, mention, article, article, article, article, article, mention, mention. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:00, 7 August 2016 (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.