This seems to me like a disagreement among the user base that goes beyond how the moderation tools were designed.
As I'm sure you are aware, the moderation tools are reputation based. Reputation is supposed to be a (somewhat limited) gauge on how trusted you are to interact with the site tools. It then takes between 3 and 5 users with moderation tools to remove content.
This whole system is meant to prevent a "rogue" user from disrupting content on the site. If a question or answer has been deleted, you at a minimum 3 user that are "trusted" are in agreement.
However, the current issues arising are that groups of trusted users are in disagreement and so we go through the close, delete, undelete, reopen cycle until the issue is raised on meta and many times a moderator lock put on the post.
So what's this got to do with your question?
I would pose another question back... How many user does it take to reach a consistent, objective measuring system? 5, 10, 100?
We have about 75 "trusted" users, about double that with access to the moderator tools, over 400 users that have direct close/reopen privileges, over 2,000 that limited access to review queues, and close to 5,000 users have earned a minimum amount of reputation.
These numbers are changing all the time. Some of the activity of users with the highest reputation slows down, but new users arrive and contribute and replenish those ranks. Since there isn't a single instant switch from the "old guard" to the "new guard" it is hard to pin down consensus on some of these topics since members within these groups may not even agree. If half of the trusted users feel one way and half feel another how is it ever possible to come to a decision on gray areas like this?
In the end I feel the only way to handle these discussion is like what is being done now. Per post metas. It may be slow, sloppy, and trivial, but it is the only viable way to get a direct answer to a questionable post.
To get to a point...
Yes, low-quality content, even if on-topic, should be removed at the discretion of those with the privileges to do so.
No, there is not a way to make this process consistent or objective in the way you ask it.
Users who abuse their privileges will be dealt with site moderators or community managers.
I feel like this is probably the process that is already in place... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯