Talk:Dean Withers

Why does he even need an article?

This article doesn't really have a use. This guy is an extremely minor figure aside from on tiktok, who made no difference to the world. Does not seem notable enough to warrant an article. 2001:BB6:7D7E:6200:2986:2810:BD74:C32 (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Withers meets our notability criteria for biographies—simple as that. He has received significant coverage from multiple published, reliable, and independent sources. It's not our place to determine who has made a difference in the world; we just go by what the sources say. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like blatant astroturfing/self-promotion and is poorly cited, containing no context for relevance. If this article is up to snuff, Wikipedia needs another 40 thousand pages to cover all the tiktokers with more than a million followers each. Recommend speedy deletion 108.49.222.200 (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Withers has 5.7 million followers on Tik Tok, it is possible there are 40,000 people who have that many followers but it is unlikely. If you think the article is poorly cited, by all means feel free to edit it so as to improve the quailty. The article was not written by Withers, it also includes critisism which meets the standard of not being promotional. He is also somewhat of an icon for the proggsive Gen Z population in America. Addie Quinn (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Dean has self-confirmed his birthday.

Dean has stated that his birthday is on September 1st. Is self confirmation not a reliable source? This New York Times Article published just 3 days ago says he is 20 as well. Zzendaya (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Zzendaya: Hey! We need to cite a verifiable published source. We can't really add a citation to a Discord message, given how server invites and all that work. Besides, that message doesn't technically confirm his birthday as 9/1/04—what if the birthday wishes were from the day before?

As for the NYT article, that's part of what went into the "born 2003 or 2004" calculation. Someone born at the very end of 2003 would also be 20 years old right now.

I've reached out to Withers, who has confirmed that his birthday is 9/1/04, and I've shared some ways he can publish his birthday in a way we can cite. It's not that I don't believe you; we just need to have a citation for his birthday, particularly since he is a living person. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand the reason for the rule, it just feels like there's certain areas where we can make exceptions. But I get it. Zzendaya (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Political party

Dean is currently registered under the Republican Party (although this voter registration is just likely outdated) https://voterrecords.com/voter/120594535/dean-withers Harry sisson (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This article reads really poorly

This article reads like it’s an advertisement for Dean rather than a neutral standpoint Fokbkmn (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fokbkmn: Feel free to be bold and edit it. However, while I may be biased in having written about 90% of the current article, I fail to see any part with an advertising tone. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 03:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Heart Palpitations

Dean had two heart palpitations today (Feb 20, 2025), one on livestream, and one at the gym. He went to Urgent Care and took an EKG and the result was "possible infarct" which is a possible heart attack. SuperbNovice (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Source:

4:47:28

Dean's friend's livestream SuperbNovice (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

See Also

 What is the point of having the pages for "Obama Girl" etc on this page? It seems useless to include them. 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:90F1:F1DA:DFA7:3CCE (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

July 2025 - Doxing\CPS claim

The Trump supporter part was from a tweet quoted in the article. It did not say 'ogle,' that's fair, but I believe it was 'look at'?

But it's a terrible source to start, and the tweet was from a third party describing the call, so I'm not about to edit war over it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

A source screenshotting Wither's tweet for context does not mean you can quote the claims of the tweet in wikivoice. Ratgomery (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That's also fair! I didn't consider that. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

15 minutes of fame?

This guy only appeared in mainstream news very briefly in late 2024 (roughly from October to December). After that he was only remembered by e-celeb drama content mills. Is that really enough to warrant him a whole dedicated article? V. S. Video (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on it, you'd want to look at before requesting deletion. Maybe contact @user:Bsoyka as they mention above having done a lot of the work on the article?

Let me know if you have any questions about putting the templates in the article, or ask on the Teahouse. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally oppose deletion here, but I obviously can't stop you from starting the deletion discussion process if you're set on doing so. As I've written above, Withers meets our notability criteria for biographies—simple as that. He has received significant coverage from multiple published, reliable, and independent sources. It's not our place to determine who has made a difference in the world; we just go by what the sources say. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 19:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with V. S. Video here - it looks like a very short episode of public attention related to the Unfuck America Tour (which btw doesn't have an article) and as far as I know he is not part of it anymore. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how a single source or statement currently in the article is related to that tour, and most of the coverage cited there was published before the tour was even announced a few months ago. I'm not sure how this is relevant to a notability discussion. Also, see WP:WAX—we don't use the (non-)existence of an article about one subject to determine the notability of another. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 17:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Robert O'neil drama

There was a short "conflict" between Robert O'neiil, which resulted in Robert making a comment in regards to Dean's appearance, saying that if there were no internet, Dean would be his "concubine".

It feels somewhat relevant, especially considering that Robert is after all a famous person, who reportedly killed Bin Laden. And on a sidenote, Dean's meet with Joe Biden should probably also be mentioned. Montefjanton (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Deliberate misrepresentation of the July 2025 CPS incident.

It's clear that this page grossly distorted the incident by intentionally excluding significant details and supported Withers personal account of the interaction. I have corrected this and will continue to do so. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It's clear that you didn't put a source on the page that supports the change you want to make. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I did, the source is in the article already in fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Withers#cite_ref-11

Did you read the article and sources or are you simply engaging in bad faith activism? Jetsettokaiba (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course I read it? How do you think I knew you were lying? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

youre lying right now, everything I included is in the actual sportskeeda report this article is based around. Like I said, bad faith activism. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Lol, I’m not a right-winger, I don’t need to lie, facts have a liberal bias.

The article definitely does not say anything about him not apologizing as you claim. I just checked for the third time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You lose. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned on @Jetsettokaiba's talk page, I removed the whole thing since it was sourced to WP:SPORTSKEEDA. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Glad I could be instrumental in finally removing the grossly inaccurate coverage of this incident which was tantamount to outright vandalism. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The funny part is that was originally added by another right-wing propaganda person like you, and then lightly-edited to make it sound neutral. Heck, I'm the one who added his fake non-apology!

But if you want to feel happy that now it doesn't mention when the kid lost it and recommended doxxing someone... okay? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

cope harder Jetsettokaiba (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Go back to twitter, kid. Adults don't talk like that. Also, learn what 'cope' even means. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

cope Jetsettokaiba (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think anyone could find a better source the last time we looked at this, I'm definitely not going to argue in favor of Sportskeeda being a notable or reliable source now that someone objects. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

YouTube being overused as a reference source.

It seems a lot of content in this article relies on YouTube as a reference. Is there a particular need to include that material in this article? Obviously YouTube can not be used as a reliable source so does this article need to include so many links to YouTube content? 4/10 of the sources used for this article are YouTube links, which seems excessive. I think this article should avoid being an advertisement. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel like YouTube is a more than fine source since he is a streamer so they are literally just sourcing him saying something? 2607:FB92:1785:5650:6CE6:F2F5:9296:D671 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with this since his fame comes from his streaming cites, I believe they should be sourced since it's so vital to how he rose to fame. Shakiralalolelele (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: TikTok and Social Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2025 and 12 November 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shakiralalolelele (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shakiralalolelele (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2026

youtube_subscribers = 566,000 Wojciech Duda (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

This article seems more like a promo piece than an actual article with most of the citations being either YouTube videos, minor publications or fluff pieces that may very likely have been paid for as is increasingly common for large content creators (New York Times), this feels like it’s really stretching the guidelines of notability here. InternetEnigma (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

See #Why_does_he_even_need_an_article? and #15_minutes_of_fame? above. If you don't think he's notable, feel free to nominate the article for deletion. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This doesn’t address the problems I’ve raised with the article though, I’m not just talking about his notability but rather this article is clearly written as a fluff piece meant to boost his credibility or whatever, this article may very well have been written for undisclosed payments something that has been a rising tacking among these content creators especially those in the political sphere with companies paying journalists to write about them positively, this article raises larger concerns than just if he’s actually notable or not. InternetEnigma (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Assuming someone was paid to write this is rather baseless, it subtracks the credibility of your point of view. I think perhasps the best pathway forward is to put Withers on a page about Librial Gen-Z debaters. Addie Quinn (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

When the article is written like a puff piece it is not in fact baseless to assume someone paid to write this article, there are multiple cases of articles being paid for by political organizations to boost their talent’s credibility, this is a matter of keeping Wikipedia’s integrity as a non-biased source of information. InternetEnigma (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I will add the article looks better than it was originally written in March which read like it was solely a promotion for an up and coming commentator in the political sphere and not an actual article on Wikipedia. InternetEnigma (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I also think it should be pointed out that the article is too short to be a "puff piece" also I think refering to your issue with the page "propaganda" would be more appropriate wording. Puff piece just sounds emotional. Addie Quinn (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I asked my mentor to email a response to this, (since I am realitivly new.) This is was what she sent me after reading the wikipage,A paid PR article typically omits damaging information. However, Withers' Wikipedia article explicitly includes a section detailing the controversy where racist and homophobic messages from his past resurfaced, alongside his public apology. The inclusion of this negative, well-documented press strongly refutes the idea that the page is a paid-for promotional tool controlled by his team Addie Quinn (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Dean's debate controversy and nickname

Deanus Politicus Carnivorus Paradoxus is heavily indexed on google. It is his pseudo-taxonomical name. Deanus Politicus Carnivorus Paradoxus.

Dean took steak money from The Vegan King to provoke a vegan. ~2026-22847-74 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Subject: Re-inserting nickname and ethical controversy section

I am requesting the restoration of recent edits regarding the classification name and the ethical debate involving the TikTok livestream. Cadddr removed updates though I supplied full video evidence of the occurrence.

1. Regarding the name "Deanus Politicus Carnivorus Paradoxus":

While pseudo-taxonomic, this name has become a significant digital identifier for Withers. It is currently indexed heavily via Google SEO and appears in search results and community discussions directly associated with his platform. Including it under "Other names" or "Nicknames" is consistent with Wikipedia’s practice of documenting notable aliases used by public figures in digital spaces.

2. Regarding the "Vegan King" controversy:

This is not a "vandalism" post; it is a documented ethical clash that occurred on a live broadcast. During the stream, Withers stated he would use gift funds for animal products (steak) immediately before receiving a gift from the notable user "Vegan King." This event sparked a legitimate discourse on the ethics of content creator transparency and vegan advocacy.

Citations:

Video Evidence: https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSHp8p1D6/This serves as a primary source for the event. The mixed overlay in first scene is a genuine glitch. Vegan king appears on Dean Withers live and speaks.

Search Association: A search for "Deanus Politicus" consistently returns Dean Withers as the primary result, proving the nickname's notability.

I ask that these be reinstated to ensure the "Debates and controversies" section of the biography is complete and reflects the actual discourse surrounding his career.

Thank you kindly ~2026-22847-74 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

On the infinitely small chance this isnt trolling, no, for a number of reasons, including the fact that Tiktok isnt a reliable source. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 03:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)