Thanks for participating in the survey.  Interesting results, and I’m not just talking about the votes. 

 As Keith points out, Askolnick should read the policies on single purpose accounts and soliciting meatpuppets – as well as WP:NPA and WP:CIV.  The “new” editors should read up on all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines prior to future voting.  One should also note that    violates this.  Amazing. 

 Rohirok’s attempt to refactor the page was far superior to what the sections look like now – which is a confusing mess.  Thanks for trying Rohirok! 

 For those experienced editors who rejected Pravda.RU, I’m curious about their stance on the Wikipedia Policy for dubious sources as it relates to this source.  Is that policy to be ignored, or is Pravda.RU a tabloid that somehow doesn’t meet a level of quality unstated in the policy?  The policy explicitly uses the tabloid The Sun as an example, I don’t think you can get more “tabloidy” than that.   Fortunately, I believe we can source the Japan appearance from material on Natasha’s own website, so the question around Pravda.RU becomes less important. 

 This straw poll is not binding, it was just a survey to see where everyone stood on the issues, but if we take away the WP:SPA entries, we seem to have majority on allowing Discovery Channel, Natasha’s own site, and the Josephson critique – all of which meet Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines for inclusion anyway – but with the history of this article, I’m sure this will need to be confirmed by higher authorities to avoid the possibility of edit wars or other problems.