List of My Little Pony Earth ponies : I would not be opposed to content from here being merged or copied into other lists as it contains more important characters like Applejack, but this list's scope is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  QuietCicada - Talk 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , Comics and animation ,  and Toys .  QuietCicada - Talk 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Keep per WP:SIZESPLIT .   This article, as well as the article from which it was split , are both over 100 kB.  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as someone unfamiliar with MLP, how many of these characters are actually noteworthy in the series?  If there's a whole ton of one-offs and minor characters I don't think WP:SIZESPLIT applies here, as those can be trimmed and the notable characters added to the main list.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Even as a non-fan, I can see that this is pure FANDOM material.  There is no way that all these minor characters are even somewhat encyclopedia worthy, and this is clearly an attempt to sweep cruft under the rug rather than just delete it.  List of mainline My Little Pony ponies should simply be merged to List of My Little Pony characters and all minor characters be removed.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As long as the article approaches a reasonable size, I am perfectly OK with this.  -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 17:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment size and content are editorial decisions.  The real question is does 'earth pony' as used in MLP meet GNG with independent RS'ing.  I've done a BEFORE-lite on that, which yields [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , among other Google scholar results.  I don't have time to dig through those, and don't immediately have access to some of the journal articles.  BUT, if those demonstrate that 'earth ponies in MLP' is a valid topic, then there's no reason to delete the list and arguing over inclusion criteria is an editorial decision.  Jclemens ( talk ) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was able to access #2 and #3 with the Wikipedia Library.  #2 (Communalism and Feminist Politics) has a brief examination of the Pegasi-Unicorn-Earth class system on page 35 (and only page 35).  #3 (Better Hegemon) is only a mention.  QuietCicada - Talk 00:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You would also have to prove that it wouldn't just overlap the general concept of ponies to the point where making a separate article about the Earth type would be undue.  It would need to be a pretty high bar that I highly doubt it would be able to get over.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not in the least.  That would be a NOPAGE discussion rather than a discussion of notability for the fictional element.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jax 0677.  Otherwise, merging this article to List of mainline My Little Pony ponies and then renaming it to the remove the "mainland" may be a good idea.  Merging it into the list of characters would just make the article way too big and/or mean that information gets lost.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing to merge here at all.  It's WP:ALLPLOT from the looks of it, any merge would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Nom.  Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRIT .  Not opposed to Merge as ATD but finding a landing place with independent sourcing may prove difficult.  Image scan sources may prove existence but does not advance notability .  Self-published sources do not advance notability, nor does forums, interviews or Q&A's.  There is so much unsourced material or material from the general primary sourcing, that makes it appear to be advocacy , advertising , or soapbox .  I also feel that someone willing to expend a large amount of time creating (and those supporting) such an elaborate list that judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by them being a fan .  Proposing that WP:SIZESPLIT applies might be credible if not for the original research and citation needed tags since 2011.  The second paragraph of the Wikipedia:verifiability policy states All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.  All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material .  Over 12 1|2 years of tags should have been plenty of time.    -- Otr500 ( talk ) 09:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I see no consensus here right now.  I'm surprised there aren't more participants in this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and others.  I see that most of the other delete ! votes are open to a merge, and I would also support that if it would help produce a consensus.  I agree that many of the unsourced entries would need to be cleaned up or outright removed, which is why deletion makes sense.  But we should also consider WP:ATD to produce WP:CONSENSUS .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – With List of mainline My Little Pony ponies (and moving to List of My Little Pony ponies/characters).  I don't follow the series, but I know there is an absurdly large fanbase.  A single list to cover all the characters is enough in my opinion.  Svartner ( talk ) 20:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge per above.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 23:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Failure of WP:LISTN .  While the actual major characters of the franchise are certainly notable, that does not give carte blanche to have multiple, massive lists of non-notable information for every minor character in the franchise.  There are virtually no reliable, secondary sources in the article actually providing any kind of coverage on these characters that would indicate that this grouping is notable, and the size split arguments for keeping are not really valid, because the only reason why these articles are so huge is because they're almost entirely comprised of trivial, unsourced information and entries that should be removed.  I am opposed to actually merging because, as ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stated above, there is really nothing that should be merged to other articles.  I will also point out that the very few blue-linked entries here already link to their entries in other character lists, so there would not even be any risk of losing information on the very few entries that have any modicum of notability.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Per Jax 0677 above ( WP:SIZESPLIT ).  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An academic article or two on the franchise doesn't make the complete list of items notable: " List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper" ( WP:LISTCRIT ), and certainly not in this exhausting, excruciating level of detail.  We are well into Wikia territory here, and the reference section indicates there's really no verified content worth merging.  Delete .  Drmies ( talk ) 23:53, 17 January 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: delete