Talk:Barbie syndrome

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles

Toys Low‑importance

This redirect 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

Low

This redirect 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

lack of any citations[edit]

Reading this "stub," I'm stunned of the lack of any citations to back up the claim that this Cindy Jackson suffers from "Barbie syndrome." Also, the lack of any content or further discussion strikes this as a rather pointless and amateurish article.

Unless someone can provide documented proof that Cindy Jackson has been accused of "Barbie syndrome" in legitimate sources of information, I feel that the undocumented statements about Ms. Jackson should be removed. I would have done it personally had it not been considered "vandalism" when someone tried to do so last month.

The strongbad link has nothing to do whatsoever with the article (which itself seems pretty bogus...).

tagged for a clean-up[edit]

I'm merely a casual reader of Wikipedia, so I don't know how to do this, but I feel that this article should be tagged for a clean-up, because, as of right now, it seems like a place to just accuse celebrities of vanity without any substantive follow-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.142.4 (talk • contribs). Agreed. It's badly written and entirely un-cited. Also, even if it can be cited, is it truly notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.184.123 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, reading this article, it came across more as unfounded anti-corporate propaganda than an encyclopedia piece. Someone more closesly affiliated with this article should consider a major rewrite. 71.233.119.221 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is reminiscent of a bummy high school paper, and, I think, should be removed, or its details maybe added into another article. Removal seems more fit, unless some good sources can be added. Obeliab (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Hope[edit]

Wasn't there an episode of Chicago Hope, where a plastic surgeon meets a woman who desires to become a real-life Barbie?

What's the reason for this Article?[edit]

This article has barely a paragraph of information. What's the point of it being here? Delierajaytoday (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

I took out the notability tag and changed it to refimprove. It seems to have a lot of google books hits. The article could use some expansion. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]