All of the moderation systems for SE/SO (thinking of both the community moderators and users with reputation-based privileges for deleting posts) are based on either the opinion of one person or distributed votes over time (e.g. 6 flags as abusive by normal users, or one by a moderator). There isn't anywhere in the system designed to hold meta-discussions about whether should be deleted for a moderation purpose (excluding Meta), and these voting by numbers could potentially be compromised by sock puppet accounts if someone is particularly motivated to remove a post or potentially harass a user.
Has the Stack Exchange network considered pulling live juries of users who are online at any given time to discuss contentious questions that moderators deem worthy of further discussion? I'm not sure how frequently these come up for moderators, but this could be a specific flag or tag that moderators can mark to submit it to a jury of users.
Since there is a reputation system, this jury could be balanced to require more users of a lower reputation or fewer users of a higher reputation (or some other system). For a more "democratic" jury, there could be equal representation of users across various reputation points. For a more reputation-based jury, there could be minimum reputation requirements to participate in these discussions.
Tactically, the system could ping users randomly (or screen them for any reputation pre-requirements), pull them into a live chat room, and have to come to a consensus for a contentious case. The record of the jury discussion could be made available to provide more accountability for moderation decisions, and it would be potentially a way to also earn reputation points as a benefit. Since this would be way more time intensive than the current system, this could be used sparingly only for the most contentious cases.