OutInPerth is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
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)[reply]
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 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.
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)[reply]