Talk:Juno Baby

This page was proposed for deletion by Liz (talk · contribs) on 15 June 2023.

Toys Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Toys To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Barbie Queen of the Prom, Eve The Second Genesis CCG, More...
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Toys articles and Unknown-importance Toys articles.
Expand : Expand the doll pages, Expand Larami article
Infobox : Toys articles needing infoboxes
Photo : Request images that are needed from Wikipedia requested photographs of toys to included in each articles.
Stubs : work on stubs in Category:Toy stubs
Other : * Tag the talk pages of Toys-related articles with the {{WikiProject Toys}} banner.
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Toys articles needing attention

Sourcing

Hello,

I want to finalize my page but even though I have references, it says I don't have any. The Time Magazine article is non-promotional and factual, and should count as a valid source. Any information would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwilliams38 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 April 2010‎

I did a cleanup on the page. The biggest issue with this product line is that there aren't a lot of reliable sources that are both in-depth and reliable of the company itself. Primary sources are unusable as far as backing up claims go. For example, press releases are considered primary and are unusable regardless of who publishes them. You can back up some trivial information with primary sources, but it's the really small stuff such as "so and so founded this in such and such". In other words, the stuff that doesn't really need to be sourced in and of themselves. I did find mentions of one of the Telly Awards and of the Emmy Award, so I fixed the cites for those. I removed a lot of the awards because in the end, most of them aren't the type that Wikipedia would consider as counting towards notability. Most awards don't count towards notability in the slightest and I usually go as far as to say that about 1% of all awards out there for any subject don't count towards notability. Of that 1%, about .01% are the type that give absolute notability that would give them enough merit to keep the article on that basis alone. The ones that I removed are of the type that aren't of enough notice or notability for Wikipedia to really even consider them trivial enough to mention. It also didn't help that I couldn't find mention of the product line in many of the websites and was only able to find primary and "junk" mentions of the awards. When you have the smaller awards like this, it's almost always better to leave them off than to add them. Adding the non-notable awards makes a lot of people suspect WP:PUFFERY, which can lead them to be biased against the article. I also condensed a lot of the article, as some of the article read a little promotional in nature and much of the content could be better stated in a summarized format. I can't guarantee that this will ensure that the article won't be nominated for AfD, but it does help it enough to where I was going to remove the PROD on that basis.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the cleanup; the article was an unbearable example of using WP to hop to the top of a web search. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juno Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]