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. GedUK  12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Secular Talk Radio - The Kyle Kulinski Show (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)

Fails on WP:GNG. Sources are unreliable. Hitro talk 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now I suppose as my searches found no better coverage other than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You can easily find kyle's show on youtube just by searching secular talk on youtube or google, there's literally no reason at all to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaosjoker909 (talk • contribs) — Khaosjoker909 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anyone can have a YouTube or Google page...but is there good third-party coverage for this? If not, this article is not acceptable and especially if it can't even sastisfy WP:GNG. I suggest familiarizing yourself with how editing works so you can understand what can be accepted and what cannot. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need a third-party coverage, when you already have the original source? If your house is on fire, do you just stay inside until someone else sees the fire, too? Just go to YouTube, type in Secular Talk and you have all the informations you need, or do you think YouTube is just messing with all of his 188.000 subcribers and Kyle Kulinski is just created by CGI?

"A topic is presumed to merit an article, if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (from Wikipedia:Notability). Two of them being people (Kyle Kulinski) and web content (Secular Talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.64.24.30 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — 47.64.24.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We need third party coverage to establish notability. We follow guidelines here at Wikipedia and we try to adhere to the policies such as WP:GNG andWP:RS. By the way, Youtube facebook and twitter are most unreliable sources on Wikidpedia, actually Wikipedia is itself an unreliable source. Please read WP:RS and provide reliable citation. Hitro talk 20:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Kyle Kulinski never met the guidelines, it got deleted. This show does not meet WP:GNG that is why we are discussing it here. Why do you think it passes WP:GNG, explain it elaborately. Hitro talk 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are crazy man. Secular Talk has nearly 190,000 subscribers and is one of the most heavily trafficked channels in the TYT Network yet it doesn't meet your guidelines? If that's true then your guidelines are broken and it really needs to change. el8^0ne 06:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, it seems helps to have third-party sources because primary sources have the ability to be misleading something take companies for example (an article entirely sourced by press releases is not going to hold). Editing here is not easy but once you understand it it's better. We can draft this to your userspace in the meantime until it gets better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a YouTube channel, so how exactly would YouTube not be a reliable source in this case? it exists, it has nearly 190.000 subscribers and thousands of videos. You can't get more reliable than this, it's impossible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.214.124 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.176.214.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source. Watch this video on youtube. This video has 17.6 millions views. Subscribers or views don't make anything reliable. Plus have you bothered to read WP:RS? it has been mentioned several times here. Hitro talk 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Seculartalk. There was recently a ranking on google putting seculartalk on the top 1% of newscasters online. That by itself makes them notable. On top of that there plenty of sources which a simple google search for kyle kulinski verifies. Blatantly notable imo. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article and Kyle Kulinski article were created on the same day, the latter got deleted A7 speedily. I don't understand what kind of rankings you are talking about, at least give some references or citations. kyle kulinski google search emits twitter on the top..followed by facebook, some youtube videos and reddit.Nothing reliable. It does not blantantly make him notable imo. Hitro talk 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The show has gotten some buzz lately, but nothing in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. News had several mentions, but nothing substantial, and all from dubious sources. Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with One15969. There's no real coverage of the show itself that I can find, except by promotional materials put out by TYT or the show itself. There's a bunch of mentions in largely unreliable sources and some borderline, but generally discussing a guest on the show, not the show itself. IMO needs at least one solid source discussing the show itself before it merits inclusion. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Onel. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated above, merely being popular does not make one notable. This show doesn't seem to have attracted the significant reliable source coverage that we need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources or assertion of notability. Having a popular YouTube account does not automatically make someone notable. Could this perhaps be redirected to List of YouTubers instead? Let me know what you think. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This whole discussion is absolutely ridiculous. I get the feeling some sort of personal agenda against Kyle is playing a big part in this demand to delete a perfectly accurate and verifiable entry. Anyone from Conservapedia here (Kyle has some beef with them)? Please stay there, if you can't handle facts!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.232.31 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.176.232.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - Not notable by the standards of wikipedia. If you don't like those standards, this is not the place to complain about it. This is. - Richfife (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient indication of notability. To the IP above making accusations of conservative bias; find two news sources giving this show substantial coverage, and the article can always be recreated. After all, Wikipedia has no deadline. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (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.