Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Allen (cricketer)
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
— User:4meter4, 18:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:E||WP:AFD||WP:V (Wikipedia:Notability)