@Slate It seems you didn't notice the last paragraph of this question stating that this question should indefinitely be marked status-planned even if the tag gets cleared because it can be recreated at any time. This per-site meta uses that tag to indicate in-progress tag cleanup requests in addition to the Meta.SE definition. Now this question will no longer show as a tag that needs to be cleaned up.

To be clear, my main concern has nothing to do with whether the question should be closed or deleted. It's just that in my view, there appear to be two factions on whether the post should stay, which may lead to unnecessary drama on the site.

@Ramhound The negative score requirement only exists for answers. For questions, there is no score requirement once 48 hours pass after closure (and the required number of delete votes increases with higher score). The only thing that requires a negative score is for 20k+ users to be able to vote to delete questions within 48 hours of closure, which requires a score of -3 or lower - however, this requirement goes away once 48 hours pass after closure. Thus, it could have gotten its first delete vote two days after getting closed in '19

Continuing, what I'm trying to get on to is that if it's the latter case (majority of delete votes came in after the edit), then that's a potential sign of issues within the community, if they believe that such posts should be deleted while you as a mod don't think they should be.

@JourneymanGeek I'd say the whole game changes if the first two votes were really old and cast long before the current edit, vs. if a majority came in after the recent bump. In the former case, only a single voter reviewed the current state of the question and decided it was delete-worthy; i.e., it was effectively a unilateral decision by the one user to delete the edited question, backed by old delete votes from the earlier, (possibly) more delete-worthy revision, which based on your undeleting the post, are in your view no longer correct.

@Ramhound Normal users cannot see when individual delete votes were cast.

@JourneymanGeek Once you're back on a reliable connection, are you able to tell when the delete votes were cast? Were they all cast very recently, or were there two pending votes that were years old and then the final one got cast last week?

That being said, it does waste one of your close votes, and here on SU it may not be an issue, but it is an issue on SO where people frequently run out of close votes. Also, even if the question does get closed, keep in mind that the server doesn't actually block answers to closed questions until four hours later - the only way to truly stop a spam question from getting answered is protecting it, which only a mod can do within 24 hours of it getting asked.

Related global meta post: Is there any actual harm in voting to close spam, as long as you flag?

Just make a positively-received feature request with a reasoned argument, then once consensus moves toward it flag for a moderator to tag as status-review and the site developers will change it.

@JourneymanGeek Should we consider getting rid of the now site-specific override that two questions at a time are bumped instead of one (originally network default back when the network was just the Trilogy)? Server Fault got rid of theirs.

The network default is one question at a time - this site has a site-specific override for two questions at a time. This used to be Trilogy-wide, but after other SE sites got introduced through Area 51 one became the effective default.

Yep, the question was handled correctly here. Per the global meta FAQ (last paragraph of the linked answer), if the question was closed for a non-duplicate reason that doesn't apply to it but a duplicate exists for it, it should be reopened and re-closed as a duplicate, so future visitors to the question are directed to an answer. (This is unlike most such cases, where if a question was closed as, say, needing detail, but the needs more focus reason applies instead, it should just remain closed as is.)

@Ramhound Yes, I'm aware. The purpose of my comment was to point this out to the author.