Talk:Vanity Publishing

Maybe an actual definition of "vanity publishing" would be apropos...? --Sebkha^(talk) 12:49, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Lots of problems with tone on this article. I don't have time to research material for the article it at the moment, unfortunately. If someone wants to make a stab at it, I would think that a better approach would be to do an objective definition of vanity publishing, then follow it with something like, "In their weblog Making Light, editors Theresa and Patrick Nielson Hayden states that..." and go from there. FYI, the Making Light URL is http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/--Duncan da Husky 13:42, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It might be simplest to link to the main Wikipedia entry, but that has other flaws.

As for Making Light, it would be better to use the specific permalink for their entries on the subject, rather than just throw the curious in at the current main page.

Unless there is something relevant to furrydom about vanity publishing, I'm not sure I see a reason to keep the article. mwalimu 20:47, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I am going to delete this, for now. I'm not quite sure what the flaw in doing so is - if people want to make something spcifically about vanity publishing of furry books, that's cool (just recreate the article), but it's not a specifically furry topic, and the general facts are better stated at the Wikipedia article.

I believe these are at least some of the pages referred to, although I couldn't find an easy way to find them all: [1] and [2]. --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:53, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)