It'd make for an interesting situation. Any borderline article can simply be submitted to AfD over and over again until the right mix of people happen to be paying attention and vote to delete it. Once that happens, the article cannot be recreated, and in fact no article by the same title can ever be recreated, and any deletion review will fail because the 5 or 6 people who happened to participate in the AfD vote have irrevocably spoken for everyone.
But, that's never actually happened, has it?
You make an interesting point. It is a widely accepted fact that consensus can change, yet we have no process by which to assess any such change for deletions. DRV is not intended to be that process, and it shouldn't be that process, but such a process is required. I think we should create an Articles for Undeletion (AFU) which would operate under a similar system to AFD. The article should be undeleted as a subpage of the deletion debate so people can make an informed decision (this is not required for DRV, but would be required for AFU, as AFU would be about content not process).
There would need to be some eligibility requirements for an article to go through AFU. AFU would not be for speedied articles - they can be unilaterally undeleted by any admin, just as they were unilaterally deleted. I think some kind of waiting period would be useful - say 1 week after the AFD is closed before you can start an AFU, and 1 month after a failed AFU is closed before you can start a new one. A requirement that AFUs be started by more than one person (ie. they have to be co-nominated) might also be good - I'm not sure how many people would be the right amount.
I know this idea involves creation of a whole new process, which may well be frowned upon by many, but I think it is necessary. At the moment, DRV doesn't really work because it is trying to handle two jobs - deletion review, and undeletion debate. Those are two different jobs and should be handled by different processes.
They might be an argument for making DRV admin-only. AFDs can only be closed by admins, so only admins should review the closure (although one could be started by anyone, only admin opinions would be taken into account). I haven't thought this through fully, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I'll put it out there for discussion anyway and I'll let you know my opinion once I've formed one.