I am one who has been opposed to the question as is (as can be seen by the comments). And though I come from a perspective that sees the hypothesis of Q as a huge waste of time and effort, I would not be opposed to reopening if the question was edited in two respects, as I do not oppose the academic value of it. The main problems I had with the original version were:
- There is no extant document to analyze, nor agreed upon reconstruction of the "Q" textform.
- The asking for "consensus."
However, Keshav Srinivasan has now stated in a comment:
The intent of my question was more along the lines of, what are the
views of believers of source criticism on this issue?
Assuming he edits the question to ask that instead, that resolves (2) and is answerable; it also in most cases resolves (1), because then the person/group being analyzed will presumably have the textform they believe is Q, which then at least we can analyze.
A summary of a person's/group's view on this can be given (assuming they have indicated enough information), and their overall reasoning stated (without necessarily verse by verse points). In this sense the question narrows focus, however there is one more hurdle faced by the OP.
The final hurdle in my mind would be how does one word the question in such a way to make a selection of a "right" or "best" answer, the one to be "accepted." Part of the "Too broad" close reasoning is that:
There are ... too many possible answers.
Such would be the case if the question is open ended of just wanting "various views," and make the question still un-openable; which I believe is Davïd's point. Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum, but a site designed to pinpoint "best" answers (at least from the OP's perspective in accepting and the community's perspective in voting). Hermeneutics questions do have a variety of answers anyway (based upon viewpoint), so BH.SE is a bit more lenient on that point I think. Yet still, the question needs to be worded in such a way that an answer can strive to meet the requirements and be worthy of "acceptance" above the other answers.
So besides the edit noted above, I believe the OP would need to rephrase it in some way that limits the scope further to what a "best" answer would provide to distinguish itself from the other postings of "views" by various people.
Just my 2 cents. (Anybody got 2 cents I can borrow to pay for this opinion?)