Deletion of CE Holkar

Comment: nbsp; As per the nomination, "most articles nominationed contain one reference".&nbsp; So some have more than one source.&nbsp; This is not a set of articles with common properties.&nbsp; The attempt to nominate them all at once is done for the purpose of presenting an |agenda.&nbsp; Editors have noticed that the WP:ATD was not considered.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: some of these may very well have been top class cricketers in their day, but the only source in all the article requires a subscription and the names are so vague that researching these individuals is difficult. Unless any citation that proves notability comes up, I'm afraid these articles fail  by a wide margin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There is substantial |Keep I like it and |other articles argument. And none is valid reason for keeping article. The fact that some articles are not sourced is never, and will never be reason to keep another |bare minimum permanent stub. There is no significant coverage of these players and therefore no biography should exist for them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:MINIMUM)

Comment: These have all the same problems as the other non-notable cricket players' articles. Sourced to only raw statistical entries inflated into prose, sourcing so minimal it's not even possible to determine such basic biographical information as a first name or DOB. Many don't even have a first ''initial''. Many of these people are likely to still be alive, so this kind of thing is irresponsible from a BLP standpoint- especially as the single source has been shown to be vague about unambiguously identifying these obscure cricketers. These articles fail  and, since the effective deprecation of , they also fail our notability requirements. If, later, some suitable sourcing should arise for some of these players the articles can be recreated. Since making them in the first place was a zero-effort undertaking, I don't suppose that will be too onerous
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:CRIN)

Comment: which are sourced only to CricketArchive, which may not even be a |reliable source and certainly doesn't satisfy . '''Procedural keep''' of all others, as they warrant their own discussions if they have more sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP)

Comment: all. The lack of sources giving any details causes GNG to be failed by a wide margin. Keeping the history is worthless because the contents are (a) prose versions of the statistics being cited (), and (b) the sources are predominantly subscription-only websites, making the content unverifiable for most readers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS)

Comment: This is a mess, you can't just nominate 20 articles in one AfD. The guidelines of  exist for a reason, and these articles all meet the notability guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then the correct course of action is to start an RfC about it, not start a mass AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)