Deletion of Alex Day (Musician)

Comment: What makes Asylum reliable? The Sun reference is more about the band, rather than him, and I'm not ''entirely'' convinced by the VidCon reference, since he's obviously mates with the guys who put it on. I must confess that I'm not familiar with Ultimate Guitar, but if (as its article suggests) it's a community-driven website, then does it still have the same editorial oversight and fact-checking that we require from reliable sources? And, if not, then what makes it reliable? His subscriber count isn't totally relevant, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIGNUMBER)

Comment: I would have CSD'd this had I seen it, as I have done at Nerimon. Alex Day had to be protected because people keep creating an article on him despite a complete absence of evidence of notability. None of the above links make any sort of difference with regards to this. '''Note: '''I have created the previous AfD box at the top of the page. These are well worth a look, especially rticles for deletion/Alex Day|fD/Alex Day, because that was quite an impressive article but simply did not prove notability. This problem remains. Day fails N and V
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: Non-notable musician; doesn't establish either the |music bio guidelines or |general notability Special:Contributions/92.16.106.34|92.16.106.34
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSICBIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Per nom, sparse G-hits, fails  and . articles about this person have been created so many times, should they be ed? Special:Contributions/109.204.113.111|109.204.113.111
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:SALT)