I fully appreciate most users want fast, efficient content curation without repeated work. But the question is this; in the rare case multiple users express the counter-wish to reinstate or keep content, should there be any presumption which side should give way?
It rarely happens but from time to time there's content which gets repeatedly removed and reinstated:
Are the current mechanisms for resolving this satisfactory?
I'll nail my colours to the mast. In my opinion, if a "quorum" (whatever that may mean) of users want some content to remain enough to undelete and reopen it, the presumption should be in favour of it remaining. IMO "doing our stuff" should be more of a concern than "stopping others doing their stuff", especially in borderline cases.
Questions are from time to time, closed, then deleted fairly rapidly in a co-ordinated fashion that then puts undeletion and re-opening beyond all but the highest-rep users (since viewing deleted posts requires a fair degree of rep.).
Content is rarely undeleted mostly because its removal is fairly uncontroversial but also because there are quite significant barriers to it happening - most of all it being invisible to the majority of users. Moreover, there is no organised team of "reopen / undeleters".