Talk:Vanity site

Might www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com be considered such a site?

Vanity Run Amok?

I'd like to include some external links to some example vanity sites, but I'm afraid that these may deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia. Reasons:

1. Stability: many personal web sites are driven with the wind and tossed, that is, they go up and down and move all the time. For Wikiepedia, it'd be preferable to have stable sites
2. Content: we can not be sure that web sites we link to have non-copyright violating content or other things, such as pornography. We can review such site's contents before linking to it, but we can't be sure how it's contents will change over time (this can be easily fixed with a disclaimer, though)

I can assure that my vanity site will be stable and doesn't have any inappropriate content, but including my own site seems a little too vain IMHO. Plus, I was just involved in a huge debate discussing whether we can include vanity entries in the 'pedia (I was against them). Including a link to my own site (or friends' sites) I'm afraid, might be deemed a little too narcissistic and make me look a littl too self-absorbed (which I'm not, really) and in the worst case possible, may get me banned from the 'pedia (NOOOO!).

We could link to celebrity sites, but the article mentions that they aren't really vanity sites at all.

Any ideas? Vanity site links or no? If so, whose? —Frecklefoot 19:03, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

put a link in to your own site. tell you what, I'll do it for you, how about that? then you're not vain. Duncharris 15:49, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

except your website, http://www.frecklefoot.net is down. How ironic given previous comments :) Duncharris 15:50, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Someone else placed the link in a long time ago. Yes, my site is down now, but it wasn't when I made the comment about a year ago. It'll be back up sometime, but don't hold your breath. :-) If someone wants to remove it--that's okay; I don't have strong feelings one way or another. —Frecklefoot 22:17, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

The stability point is very valid, but a way round it would be to link to the archived version of a site at the brilliant http://www.archive.org. Perhaps someone could use this to find truly awful pages from several years ago. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)