Deletion of A Dose of Buckley

Comment: almost all the refs are own web-site or social media and the one remaining one falls a very long way short of establishing notability. Searches reveal the same slew of social media and nothing new or notable. Fails  '''''&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As Bearcat has clearly demonstrated, the sources in the article do nothing to get Buckley over GNG. My searches in multiple databases and google news reveal nothing else that is non-primary, independent, non-trivial, and reliable. No evidence that the subject of this article. Under 1 million subscribers (550k-ish at time of writing, not verified in a secondary source) generally doesn't meet criteria 2 of  which is the only other thing I could think of that might give this article a chance of meeting notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ENT)

Comment: Seven of the eight footnotes are YouTube videos and other |primary sources which are not support for notability, and the only one that actually comes from a real media outlet is a smalltown community hyperlocal which isn't widely distributed enough to singlehandedly get him over  if it's the ''only'' acceptable source in play. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this — GNG is ''not'' just "everybody who's ever gotten their name into any newspaper on earth even once", but applies tests for depth and range and volume and context
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:GNG)