There is no black and white answer to such a question, but probably not.

By asking here, I would assume that you are motivated by one of three scenarios:

a) You are writing an essay, and want to use one or more videos as a source. If I was marking it at least, I would be unimpressed. There is no real reason to use such a source in a formal piece of academic writing, where sources should either be in the form of primary evidence or from scholarly literature on the subject. If they are a serious historian of the subject, then refer to their published peer-reviewed work, where you can engage with the substance of their ideas directly. If they aren't, they shouldn't be in the essay full stop (unless it's on the history of youtube channels, in which case I suppose it would count as primary evidence). This has little bearing on how accurate the videos are - this is the comment I would leave in an essay that used such source material:

This is not an appropriate source to be using here. Specifically, the sources you use (apart from primary material) should almost always be scholarly in nature - i.e. an academic journal article or book.

There's a very good reason for this, and it's not because academic historians are always right and everyone else isn't, or even that some websites aren't reliable. It's because academic texts are required to tell you what the basis of their claims are (and have gone through peer review to ensure that they actually are telling you). They need to provide enough support for their claims that you can make an informed judgement about whether they've come to the right conclusion. Ultimately, the point of referring to another historian's views in an essay is not to find historians who agree with you and blindly trust their conclusions, but to interrogate what they're saying, and you can't do that unless you know what their claims are based on.

b) You are considering answering a question here using this source. For much the same reason as above, we frown on using Youtube channels as source material. While we're happy for users to provide videos for illustrative purposes, they should not be the main source of information you are using. The whole point of this subreddit is that answers are based on current scholarly understandings of a subject - relying on a Youtube channel shows that you have at best second-hand knowledge of current scholarly literature.

c) You are in an argument with someone, and want to use this source to support your position, and would like some form of confirmation that your point should therefore be seen as authoratative/strong/convincing. Your own private arguments have whatever burden of proof that you want them to have. Any attempt by a third party to delineate what is and isn't reputable enough for you to rely on can only ever be arbitrary.