The result was I'm closing this one as a keep - it seems to be the preferred solution of the vast majority of respondents, despite the occasionally aggressive discussion. Rebecca 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Since when were peer reviewed journals not reliable sources? futurebird 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to debate how the sources are use here. I'll be glad to do that on the talk page of the article. futurebird 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying hard to understand your point of view. What is the article "speculating on the possible existence" of? futurebird 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malik, I feel that that your tone here is a bit sarcastic. Could you please assume good faith and try to remain civil? futurebird 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]