This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:51, December 4, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. I wonder, regarding the Smart Dolls if the category "Fashion doll" is really the correct one? I am wondering for the reason that these dolls, according to for example this clip, are apparently electronically animated and can move?
The company's website (under Tech Specs) calls it a "Fashion Doll", and the listed specs don't seem to suggest robotic aspects. That video might just be some experimental thing, but it's not clear.
Hi, I'm a doll collector. They're definitely not robotic! They are a big deal, though. They may be better described as Asian Ball Jointed Doll. I'd say that's at least as good a description as Fashion Doll. The information is somewhat outdated. I'd like to create a page purely about the dolls. ChickpeaTic (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It seems to me that this page fails the notability criteria and should be deleted: almost all references are from Danny Choo's own websites. From what I can see in the history, the page was successfully put up for deletion twice before (in 2008), but for some reason, it has reappeared. It has been flagged up again for deletion in 2018, but the tag was removed. To add to this confusion, it also seems that the page has been getting vandalised regularly by users claiming to be representatives of Danny Choo, which makes tracking the situation more difficult.
Yes, I did run that search before posting, but the results seem to be either trivial mentions or because of association with his father, Jimmy Choo, who has his own Wikipedia article. The only significant discussion of Danny Choo is in the second article you list, which is from the Parramata Advertiser, an Australian local publication. Overall, it doesn't seem a noteworthy subject to me. Of course, if there are more independent and reliable sources out there (which I don't have the time or interest to research) that give non-trivial coverage to this person, then somebody should add them to the article to make notability clearer. But as it stands, I think the article should be deleted.
Of course, I'm just one man's opinion, and another vote might be appropriate. But first, we should probably clarify what was the basis of the article re-appearing after it had already been voted for deletion twice (which is the main point of my original post).
The reason the article now exists after two discussion is that someone created it. There is a speedy deletion criterion that might have been tried at the time, G4. It allows a recreation of an article deleted after a discussion to be deleted without any discussion. It requires the article to be substantially the same as the article that was deleted. Looking at the deleted version and the first version of this creation, I do not believe it would qualify. At this point the one option if you think it should be deleted is to start a new discussion at WP:AFD. ~ GB fan16:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
