On 4/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO The admin who closes a renomination should look for people who voted in the first afd who changed their vote from "keep" to "delete" in determining if consensus really has changed. Lacking that, the article should stay unless the article is substantially different from what it was when the article was first nominated. Even that case there is always the option of reverting it back to its pre-first-nomination state.
Looking at the same people is a good idea. I also like to consider whether different arguments have been raised in different debates.
In this case, the first debate [1] followed a DRV which overturned a speedy deletion [2]. The debate largely confined itself to the question of whether the speedy deletion could be justified, and asked whether the article was an attack page and whether the subject was notable.
The second debate [3], which also followed a DRV [4], also raised issues of notability but additionally focused on questions of reliability of sources, the BLP policy and questions of NPOV.
It seems to me that looking at whether the debate is conducted on a different basis is a good indicator of changing consensus, just like whether the same people are expressing different views.
-- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&di... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer_%... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26