Deletion of Michael Allen (cricketer)

Comment: this seems to just be a nomination to argue about CricketArchive as a source, something that is perfectly permissible. Played almost 200 first class matches, no evidence the nominator has even tried to do a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Passes  and played nearly 200 FC matches to receive enough coverage. For more than one month, there were very few AfD nominations of Cricket Articles as User:Storm stopped driving them. But now sad to see that 4meter4 also has taken the job of driving articles to AfD. I noticed 4meter4 also nominated many articles of athletes who participated in Olympics. I don't really understand why some users have no interest in improving article, just their goal is to delete them all. Those users who don't have good idea about cricket and have not significantly contributed to the project should not be rush to nominate articles for deletion. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)

Comment: Obvious pass of . If ''Wisden'' isn't  for cricketers' biographies (https://wisden.com/players/michael-allen link), I don't know what is. 500 wickets at 22.43 in FC matches isn't chopped liver. It's like saying an MLB pitcher with an ERA of only 3.00 over a 10-year career is . I'm close to calling this nomination frivolous
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:RS||WP:NN)

Comment: All of this complaining is not helpful, and the article did (and does) have serious issues at demonstrating GNG as well as overall verifiability. At the time I nominated the article, the only visible external link was https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/michael-allen-8516, which is essentially a statistical table of content which does not support the prose of the article; and is routine coverage which does not rise to level of sourcing required by . The CricketArchive link is a subscription access service, which per xternal links should not be included in external links because it is not visible to the general public. Such material can be used as cited sources per policy, but that is not how it was used here. For those claiming the external links somehow verified the article, I'm just not seeing it. They didn't. The article still is largely unsourced and unverified. This nomination was therefore appropriate per policy at  and erifiability. The fact that such issues are widespread in cricket articles is not my problem, and points to systemic verifiability issues in this area on the encyclopedia that apparently leaves a large percentage of cricket articles at risk for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:E||WP:AFD||WP:V)

Comment: since subject comfortably meets  and moreover , though the article's text is |rather messy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRICKET||WP:GNG||WP:ATD)