Virtually every incident in which a user nominates large numbers of articles for deletion it results in an inevitable firestorm.
I've been kicking around Wikipedia long enough to have seen it happen many times on everything from terms for sex acts to small towns to electronics components, and it never fails to generate accusations of wp:POINT violations, noticeboard reports, RfCs, deletion reviews and other mass chaos.
On the other hand sometimes a mass article review is warranted, consensus on a particular type of article changes or a notability guideline is revised, so there needs to be some method for deletion of a large number of articles that may no longer meet consensus for inclusion.
I hope that this suggestion helps to eliminate the bad blood on both sides of mass deletion debates: to stop those arguing for the articles involved from feeling as if there are too many articles nominated at once to research each of them, and to be able to respond to deletion discussions with more than a copy-pasted boilerplate defense. At the same time it helps prevent those arguing for deletion from feeling they cannot argue for deletion without some artificial throttle on the quantity of deletions.
A side goal is allowing for more consistent results across wide subject areas when notability guidelines and consensus changes.
I think the first step is separating mass deletions from the time-limited AfD process. Wikipedia doesn't have to be done tomorrow, and with the exception of BLP articles (and BLP violations aren't really an issue that happens en masse) deletions are not a time-critical matter, another week or two isn't vital to the project's reputation.
As a result I am proposing a process that works somewhat more like an Request for Comment than a deletion debate.
First, the deletion nominator sets out the scope of the nomination and his rationale. The scope is written like the inclusion criteria for a list, and states explicitly what is in the scope of the investigation. The rationale is written like a conventional deletion rational, but also should include an explanation as to why the articles need to be examined together. He should also lay out a scope