No subject

===
"Asking the other parent"

On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a
changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different
and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This,
however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical
to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are based not
on the numerical fact of how many people showed up and voted a
particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to
change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons
behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more
people showed up supporting position A than position B.

A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so
much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the
people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one.
===

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.