Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not evaluated

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 keep. No consensus to delete; a possible merger may be proposed on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not evaluated

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As pointed out on talk, this isn't actually a thing. NE isn't a status, it's the absence of a status. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Yes, I've been pondering that. It is only an IUCN "category" inasmuch as it is a catch-all - a default bin of unknown size. (This is in contrast to "data deficient", which IS specifically assigned on a case-by-case basis (and contains some surprising examples such as killer whales).) There's very little point in having a list article that plucks a dozen examples out of millions in a completely arbitrary manner. We should take this opportunity to get rid of it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Keep or Redirect The changes implemented by Nick Moyes do actually render this a sensible article. There is a a certain amount of information to convey about this state and how it's handled; the main issue is the pointless list, and with its removal this looks okay to me. I would be just as happy to have it as a redirect to IUCN and have the specifics treated there, but as long as the list is gone, I'm not fussed about it being a standalone article either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IUCN Red List; though I'm not sure this is the primary topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK declaration of interest first: this is one of my former work areas - the designation of conservation statuses (albeit at a regional, not an international level). In the categorisation of global conservation statuses of taxa, it is important (as Donald Rumsfeld would have said) to be able to define the 'known knowns' - the statuses of species we have already managed to assess, as well as to categorise the 'known unknowns' - those taxa where there has not, as yet, been any opportunity to make an assessment, but where there could well be a risk to a species were we to carry on with certain actions as if there were no risk to global biodiversity. Being able to categorise those, as yet, unassessed taxa is highly important as it focuses attention on what is and what is not yet known. The IUCN itself says here (my emphasis added): "Listing in the categories of Not Evaluated and Data Deficient indicates that no assessment of extinction risk has been made, though for different reasons. Until such time as an assessment is made, taxa listed in these categories should not be treated as if they were non-threatened. It may be appropriate (especially for Data Deficient forms) to give them the same degree of attention as threatened taxa, at least until their status can be assessed." Now, I know Wikipedia doesn't care much what an organisation itself says about its work, but this categorisation really is as important as Data deficient, and more important in some ways than Least-concern species because they have already been assessed for global conservation risk, and none has been found at this time. Not evaluated is part of a coherent suite of IUCN categories and, as such, should be retained along with them. The lede sentence very helpfully comes high on a Google search, adding rapid clarity to what, I admit, is a complicated subject should anyone search for it. I would ask editors to reconsider their !votes, but at the very worst scenario to redirect to IUCN_Red_List#IUCN_Red_List_Categories. That said, the list of exemplar taxa needs paring down or, beter still, removing completely and seems to have suffered long term abuse from a now blocked IP. I agree with Plantdrew who observed in 2017 that Not Evaluated applies to any taxon not yet allocated a category by assessment from the IUCN. But the IUCN recognises this as important. I earnestly believe the page for this Category does have real world relevance and value to users, and is of international significance. I also note that 149 other articles also link to it. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Nick, when I looked at the web-searchable Red List, there was no way to search for a Not Evaluated species. Are there reliable sources that say that a particular species is designated as NE? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, SarekOfVulcan but there are reliable sources that define, mention or use that category, or base their country red data lists on IUCN criteria (see here, here, here, here, here, here and below). Unfortunately, by the IUCN definition of this category, a 'Not Evaluated' taxon won't have been assessed yet, and therefore will not be on the IUCN database until such time as it has been assessed. And once it's been added to the IUCN database it will, by definition, no longer by a 'Not Evaluated' category species! I realise this seems oxymoronic - but in conservation terms, highlighting that there remain millions of taxa which are categorised as 'Not Evaluated' really is important, as the source I quoted above indicates. As a Wikipedian I fully understand how assigning notability to an apparently amorphous conservation category like this which contains 'everything else scientists haven't looked at yet' seems to go against all we hold dear and verifiable, but not deleting one from a suite of closely related, highly significant and clearly-defined world conservation categories does, in my view, seem worth arguing for. I believe I read on the IUCN website that every single mammal species on the planet has now been assessed by the IUCN, so there will not be any 'Not Evaluated' mammals on the database at all, but, by their absence, there are innumerable fish, bryophytes, arthropods etc etc which fall into that important category. And it's the category I'm arguing for, not the random list of species someone added to the page. This source makes two separate statements which I have concatenated here: As of 2015 IUCN had evaluated over 76,000 species, of which 24,000 and classed as threatened. Species are placed into nine categories ranging from extinct to not evaluated. Of the nine categories, animals which fallen into the categories Endangered, critically endangered and vulnerable are classified as threatened species. . . . Not evaluated: Estimates for the number of species on Earth range from 3-30 million species meaning this category of those not yet evaluated is the by far the largest of all. And here is a single country's reference to the category of 'Not Evaluated' being used in their own national Red List. I will add them to the article, and propose that we delete the entire selection of Not Evaluated species from that page on the basis that they cannot be verified by their absence from a definitive database, even though that is precisely what defines them being placed in that category. (I do hope this rather long and circuitous response makes at least some sense!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update Article has now been improved to demonstrate NE is a valid and significant global IUCN categorisation, just like all the other eight IUCN categories, and is not just a pointless 'absence of a status', as suggested by the OP. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, following Nick Moyes recent edits to the article that explain both the NE category definition and its use by the IUCN, accompanied by the deletion of the useless random "example" species list. The topic is still needed as one of the nine IUCN categories, even as just a comparison to the other eight. Alternatively, each of the nine IUCN categories could easily be a separate paragraph in a single coherent IUCN article. Loopy30 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Necessary for completeness. Aeonx (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with other ICUN categories. NE is a distinct category that is both not (known to be) safe and not threatened, and should be covered along with the others for completeness. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 12:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.