Deletion of Edward Henry Allen

Comment: Completely impossibe to assess this many nominations. Should never have been mass nominated like this. Allen was awarded two Navy Crosses, so clearly passes  #1 (thus the whole nomination is based on an inaccuracy). Others may have too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: It's a challenge just to count the number of articles in this bundle – over 200, I reckon.  The nomination is poorly explained and some spot checks indicate that it has been done sloppily.  For example, the creator of Rogers Blood was not notified specifically.  It appears that there will always be a sensible |alternative to deletion such as improvement of the article; merger to the corresponding ship or to the battle or to a list of medal winners.  As |AfD is not cleanup, we should not have to go through collective agonies to figure all this out across such a huge number of articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: procedural), the nominator has got to be kidding! around 220 articles bundled together, even a perfunctory 5min search for each ie. googing and checking the first 20 results will take 16+ hours (without food/sleep/toilet breaks:)), can a nice admin please close this and suggest that (much) smaller bundles may be made over the next few weeks (after a  is made on each article of course
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: and a {{tl|trout}} to the nominator for making a nomination that, while it may not have been consiously intended as such, is ''indistinguishable from'' |disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This mass nomination is simply impossible to properly assess on each individual article's merits; it doesn't take much slipping of |good faith to feel that it was either intended as such or has that effect as a feature and not a bug
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:AGF)

Comment: on procedural grounds as per the above comments.  No compliance with efore.  This is simply vexatious and akin to andalism, even if I assume . See reserve
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:V||WP:AGF||WP:P)

Comment: the following since they meet first criterion of  for multiple awards at 2nd highest level (both just below Medal of Honor according to respective Wiki pages
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)