Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Palm Civet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Palm Civet

A more informative page regarding this topic exists at Palm civets Trey 22:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect No need for a proliferation of pages on the same subject. -- (aeropagitica)  22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. PJM 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment aren't there other pages on other forms of Palm Civets? We are aiming for as informative an encyclopaedia as possible? What is the policy of the Biologists towards this sort of thing? Dan 15:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Palm civets just redirects to Civet so it does not have more information than Common Palm Civet. The Common Palm Civet article should be kept along with the articles for Hose's Palm Civet, African Civet, Otter Civet, and all other distinct civet species. -- jaredwf 09:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per aeropagitica. Stifle 01:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is ample precedent for each species having its own article (see for example List of North American birds, where the vast majority of the more than 800 species listed have links to individual articles for each species. Dsmdgold 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.