Talk:Danny Choo

The Smart Dolls
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? - Okama-San (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. TastyChikan (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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 The information is somewhat outdated.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)

Notability and deletion
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. TastyChikan (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * He is mentioned by third party websites. Here are a few I found just from some brief searches:


 * https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/2179369/giant-display-kowloon-shangri-la-highlights-first-charity
 * https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta/danny-choo-on-famous-father-jimmy-shoe-design-and-robots/news-story/977f3974590b8b13bd1fe572112f9614?nk=777e02b5211277edb90244f601153727-1551084968
 * https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/jimmy-choo-puts-in-a-good-word-for-son-dannys-range-of-dolls-for-men/news-story/7473febec7a755d7fba5af83a12a0275
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenorsini/2018/08/20/make-way-for-fangirls-more-japanese-women-identifying-as-otaku/


 * I'd imagine there are more out there. Helper201 (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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). TastyChikan (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 fan 16:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)