Deletion of Alex Day (2nd nomination)

Comment: Not necessarily because of the subject's notability, but mainly because the current version of this article is almost identical to the one that was deleted last October following rticles for deletion/Alex Day|this AfD discussion (probably the most thorough of the ''four'' previous discussions on this person). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Day&diff=449395232&oldid=390092540 The only real changes to the article since then seem to be the addition of links to some YouTube pages (which aren't reliable sources) and general mos fixes. Very little of the actual content of the article has changed, therefore the arguments favouring deletion back then are all still valid now. I have http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Day&oldid=447148617#Edit_request_from_MarcusBritish,_28_August_2011 previously espoused how I think that, if the article ''does'' exist, it needs to be written in chronological order so as to make the most logical sense to an uninformed reader. Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that this particular article should be deleted per  and maybe  (which I know are technically criteria for ''speedy'' deletion, but I still think they're relevant here). Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:G4||WP:G11)

Comment: I'm bemused that this wasn't simply speedy deleted. On seeing that the article had been recreated I had assumed that there was new content and/or refs which indicated the subject was now notable. If there is such material, I'm afraid it has eluded me. The number of refs is so vast I have not checked them all, or whether they simply correspond to those used before, but they seem to be overwhelmingly from unreliable sources and/or to make minimal mention of the subject. This is so much the case that it may help the case of the article's advocates to shovel out the dross refs to see if any of value remain. I can't see anything substantial that has changed since I nominated it for deletion last October, so I may as well repeat the spiel: "Apparently fails  and . Vast no. of refs but overwhelmingly from subjects own web sites and ones directly associated with him, blogs, other self-published sites, minor or very indirect (or even apparent non-) mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ENT)