Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-human primate


 * 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 was   no consensus to delete, but was merged by apparent consensus.  Sandstein  17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-human primate

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

dicdef, whose definition is better met at primate. UtherSRG (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps at the moment (I just created it), the term is a dictionary definition, but I am working on populating it. I believe this term is not adequately met by the Primate article because the term non-human primate has specific meaning in scientific/medical research and as a general term for a category of pets. In fact, there is US Federal regulation that specifically address non-human primates as research subjects. Surely that information doesn't belong in the general Primate article. Additionally, there is a section in the Primate article that discusses "Legal Status". I feel that is out of place in an article that is discussing the order Primates. That section should be moved to the non-human primate article, because that is indeed where it more appropriately belongs. Chaldor (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need. The primate article should cover all aspects of primates, from taxonomy to legal status. Build up the existing article first, then if there is a need, fork off later. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we can put in a section within primates that discusses the term/concept of non-human primates? Chaldor (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Why should there be an article on this that forks from Primate? From reading that article, there does not seem to be a lot of undue weight on Homo sapiens.  I need a lot of convincing.  Also, and I am not trying to make an accusation or implication, but hearing the animal testing issue addressed so quickly makes me wonder if there is some kind of a POV fork here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, not at all. I'm not trying to make a POV fork. My apologies if it appeared that way. That topic was just one of the things I had been recently going over on the wiki. I created the non-human primate page after reading through the primate page, the exotic pets page, and the animal research/primate research pages. In these articles, there are many references to primates/non-human primates (some of which I felt should be directly linking to a dedicated NHP page because of the specifics they were addressing). In all of these articles, none of the "primates" being addressed were referring to humans, they were only referring to NHPs. I have found NHP to be a well-established term and it is used and referenced very often (usda.gov, pubmed.gov, etc). Additionally, as mentioned before, I felt that the legal status section was a bit out of place in the general primate page (no one is questioning the legal status of primates in general, they are simply questioning the legal status of NHPs). I think it's just another very useful way of categorizing the primate order. On one side, there are humans. On the other side, there are NHPs, which, as a group, are the subjects of research, used as pets, subject to NHP legislation, are the subject of personhood debates, etc. Chaldor (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not merge it to Animal testing on non-human primates? That is where essentially all the data given in the current version of the article appears to belong. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Chaldor, thank you very much for that explanation. Especially after this explanation, I see where you are coming from, and the term "non-human primate" is certainly legit as you have described it.  I am still wondering if there is enough to write a separate article vs. improve an already existing one.  Nsk92 has made a possible suggestion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks LonelyBeacon for your comment and understanding. I think I'm beginning to understand the general consensus point of view on this. It didn't occur to me to create the NHP section within the primate article. Given that currently, there is not enough material to warrant a separate article for it, would it be acceptable to merge this page in as a section in the primate article? The "legal status" section would far more appropriately fit under an NHP section within the primate article. It's of no importance to me whether NHPs have their own article or not (the distinction between an article versus a section within another article is just an arbitrary organizational technicality). I simply want the term/phrase to have a definable reference point because it is an important concept. Regarding Nsk92's comment, I'd rather not have NHPs defined within the animal testing article because there is a clear distinction between the concept of an NHP, and the idea of NHPs used in research (as there are other uses of NHPs as well, such as pets). For this reason, I feel that the definition of the NHP term would be more appropriate in the primate article than in the NHP research article. Naturally, there should be a small discussion and a link to the NHP research page in the NHP section of the primate article (as there is now in the legal status section). The idea of merging this page into the primate page makes sense to me. The concept is important, but the quantity of material isn't enough to warrant it's own page per the general wiki guidlines (this makes sense to me). Thoughts? Chaldor (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, merge it into primate. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its a great idea. The day may come when that section grows too large and demands and article, but I think that merging that section will improve the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merged and all redirects corrected. I like how this turned out. Thanks for showing a newbie how it's done. :) Chaldor (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not going to challenge the above consensus for now, but I think there is enough material--the term is used in a quite specific way,and I would strongly encourage re-expansion of the section into an article. (I did think we had a rule to wait until the closing to make major changes of this sort. )  DGG (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no idea, there's only three paragraphs right now. Is that enough to warrant it's own article? Chaldor (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2008 (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.