He seems to be following the letter of the rules. I'd say he's ignoring the spirit--except that obviously some people think deletionism is in the spirit of the rules too. In fact, often the rules are made unclear so that different people can "agree" on them in the first place, which makes it hard to tell what the spirit of the rules ever was.
I certainly think this behavior *shouldn't* be allowed, but it's hard to see how not to allow it without changing the rules. The letter of the rules is badly broken: * The AFDs are discussed and approved outside the affected pages. Some people see this as a feature. (Mentioned in the amendment request preceding this) * Once the articles are removed, he benefits from status quo. It's a lot harder to contest an AFD after the fact. * Making large numbers of basically similar changes makes it hard to contest all the changes at once. * A merge is not officially a deletion. We really need to give up on these legal fictions.
(Variations on the first three happened for spoiler warnings too. This isn't coincidence.)
Though despite all this, the Barrett v. Rosenthal RFA further down the page is pretty scary all on its own.