List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita: "Population figures are the current values, and the number of laureates is given per 10 million." - why should it be?  How a population of today's Hungary relevant for Nobel prizes won by people who were born in 19th or early 20th centuries?  (The problem is the same for all countries, the example is about Hungary because out of few refs in this list multiple are about Hungarians.)  How does EU have 247 Nobel prizes?  Surely people who were born and dead long before EU was created shouldn't count.
 And like that, the whole list is unsourced OR that should be deleted.  Artem.G ( talk ) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Science ,  and Lists .  Artem.G ( talk ) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Using "current values" and then only using 2018 figures doesn't make sense either.  If the values are current why not just use the most recent population value available?  14 October 2019 also seems like an arbitrary cutoff date, especially when there's a column for "Laureates in last 10 years (2014-2023)".  If the article is going to be kept it should at least be semi-regularly updated properly.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but even the updated data would make little sense - why should a population of a modern country be used?  Population changed a lot in the last hundred years, but this list divides modern population by historical number of Nobel prize winners.  Modern Hungary is not Austria-Hungary, with very different population.  No serious source use such numbers, that's a pure OR.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah that's also definitely an issue.  Procyon117 ( talk ) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Nobel laureates by country .  My very best wishes ( talk ) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] what exactly do you propose to merge?  The whole list is unsourced and OR.  Artem.G ( talk ) 06:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is actually sourced.  Well, if there is nothing to merge, that's fine.  One can just make it a redirect.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is basic division, not original research.  These are not baseless claims that others cannot easily replicate.  You can quibble about grouping EU countries, but it's not a basis for deletion.  In any case someone has already merged some numbers to List of Nobel laureates by country , so that can be completed, with discussion as appropriate.  Reywas92 Talk 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] well, by that logic you can divide current Egyptian population by the number of pharaohs and get 15.77 pharaohs per 10 millions modern Egyptians.  No sources, no OR, just division.  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the table in List of Nobel laureates by country#Summary is even worse, no sources, no population numbers or years, just mindless division...  Artem.G ( talk ) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think we need coverage on pharaohs per capita, but yes, you could put that simple division in an article with a specific source and it would not be original research.  Reywas92 Talk 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's completely nonsensical.  WP:CALC says that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources .  How on Earth could it possibly be a meaningful reflection of the sources?  It's not even a meaningful figure —the modern-day country of Egypt is not the same political entity as the one(s) that had pharaohs, and it makes no sense to use the population of the former to calculate a population density that relates strictly to the latter.  If anything, what would make sense for these kinds of calculations would be to use the cumulative population, not any instantanteous one.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or delete: to List of Nobel laureates by country .  Per 10 million people is a user-generated statistic -- it may be basic division, but its selection was made by the judgement of a user, which is in the direction of original research.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 15:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is still basic arithmetic ( WP:CALC ), presenting it this way rather than per 1 million people doesn't mean it's original research.  This is the most mundane "selection", and even if some source uses a different base it may still be an appropriate way to present the number.  You can argue this isn't a notable topic as a whole that needs a standalone article, but simple, routine calculations anyone can replicate without complex formulae are not forbidden, regardless how displayed.  Reywas92 Talk 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your point on "basic arithmetic", but maybe you can tell me why such calculation makes sense?  why should a Nobel prize winner, who was born and died 70 years ago (a hypothetical example), be used in a calculation of how many Nobel prize winners per capita are in a modern country with compeltely different population?  Is there any reliable source that gives such statistics?  This (now dead) BBC article is used in that list, but even BBC didn't divide number of Nobel prize winners by modern population.  Artem.G ( talk ) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a violation of WP:NOR with a dose of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization .  Yes, the arithmetic may be trivial, but the choice of which numbers to do arithmetic upon takes this outside what policy can support.  WP:CALC does not justify this.  The prototypical case for applying WP:CALC is taking a figure that a source reports in miles and converting that to kilometres.  This isn't that.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 03:54, 2 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect