For those looking for your daily dose of VfD (Because, really, why pretend changing V to A changed anything) abuse, I submit for your amusement http://www.slate.com/id/2126570/entry/2126575/
Which is deleted at 60%, with one of the delete votes being very weak. When someone sensibly objected to deleting at 60%, which is considerably below the MINIMAL and highly disputed 2/3 threshold, and undeleted...
A delete/undelete war started.
Yes, there was a fairly conclusive VfU that said keep deleted. But as has been noted, VfU is exceedingly deferent to VfD, such that bad calls on VfD have no real recourse.
Adding to the problem is the fact that we're apparently adding a condition of extreme deference to the closing admin, which means that the final fate of articles is more or less being single-handedly decided by whether or not the closing admin happens to be of the 2/3 flavor, the 60% flavor, the 75% flavor, the "I just delete what I feel like" flavor, or what.
If nothing else, we should accept that deletion will be handled like blocking, with objections to deletion being taken very seriously, and with admins being given a wide latitude to undelete what they see as bad closings.
To summarize, there are two key problems that NEED to be addressed, and that exist outside of whether one is an inclusionist, a deletionist, or a big blue frog.
1) AfD is simply too busy for the statement "Any good article that is nominated for AfD will be noticed by someone within five days" to be plausible, leading to a high probability that the generally deletionist tendencies on AfD will delete articles that, by most reasonable standards of the Wikipedia community at large, would be kept.
2) The closing procedures for AfD and subsequent appeals processes are heavily biased towards deletion, meaning that the only time that noticing and objecting to a good article being nominated is useful is in the first five days.
-Snowspinner