Talk:OutInPerth

Circulation

User:Markbrown00: Please stop removing referenced information about its circulation. It's a sign of its notability, which you questioned after you removed it. Please try to make constructive edits to improve the article, not the other way round. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Zigzig20s. You and I do not appear to be in consensus. I propose that, as currently written and referenced, the circulation information isn't suitable for Wikipedia because:

1) The circulation stats are the publication's claims about the readership of their publication. They may happen to be accurate but there is nevertheless a conflict of interest and a promotional tone. Circulation is primarily of interest to potential advertisers.

2) Circulation is not notable in and of itself. There must be some comparison illustrated. For example, is it the most read LGBT publication? Or the smallest? (The information about its successful GoFundMe campaign is notable and in fact made news in other publications)

I invite other Wikipedians to weigh in.--Markbrown00 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is reasonable to state the circulation figures; even without comparison to other newspapers, they provide relevant information about this one. Note that The West Australian#Audience includes readership figures without comparing them to anything else; The Sunday Times (Western Australia)#Current format and circulation lists the paper circulation without comparison to anything else (although it does rank the online circulation).

If we can get them, alternative references for the figures would be better than the current self-published numbers – so I've tagged the sentence with {{Third-party inline}} – but unless there is a specific reason to doubt them, I don't think we need remove the figures just because the subject of the article is the only reference.

Personally I think the current wording is neutral and factual, not promotional, but feel free to suggest an alternative wording.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If we keep the number of outlets, we need to fix "found in 230 bars, ...". Currently the references say "over 200 locations" and "over 300 locations". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Notable?

Can someone explain how does that meet WP:N? Not all newspapers are notable; as businesses they have to meet WP:CORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is the only LGBT publication in Western Australia.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to that effect? Mitch Ames (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Google is your friend, people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Was a newspaper or is a website

These days, OutInPerth operates as a web only publication, so shouldn’t the lead start with something like "OutInPerth is a website and formerly a newspaper"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbrown00 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)