Talk:Media in Winnipeg

update needed re daily newspapers

A third daily newspaper, the Metro, is available free on the streets. It joins editions of this paper published in other Canadian cities. I will update the article if no one else gets to it, and if someone puts a reminder in my inbox. Otherwise, it is low priority and requires research on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricgal (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

References to blogs and online media source

I'd like to explain why I don't think the website Winnipeg Alternative Media should be on this Wiki page at this point in time. This website has not met Wikipedia's notability standards. Specifically, Wikipedia has stated "if the individual web content has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists." Winnipeg Alternative Media is entirely online, with no print or non-online distribution. It is a new website that has been in existence for less than six months and has not been featured in any other media outlet. In short, this seems to be more like a blog than a legitimate media outlet. If this changes in a year or two, then we can re-add it to the Wiki page, but at this it doesn't belong on the page. DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Winnipeg Alternative Media has been around for two years now. The website has been registered for over a year and has an active following aswell as an active staff of over a dozen people. It has been cited on major news organizations such as CBC and CTV and is actively involved in many major activist movements such as the fluoride movement. ChrisD is just as much of a "blog" with no active print. Besides, this section is for internet media. X9a3k (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the website has been registered and has an active following doesn't mean its notable. If its been cited on major news organizations, such as CBC and CTV, then please provide some links to the news articles where the Winnipeg Alternative Media was quoted as a legitimate media source. As previously mentioned, just because you discuss a topic that has gotten a lot of attention, such as the fluoride controversy, doesn't mean the website is notable.

In regards to removing ChrisD's website, I am all for editing the page. Please provide more reasons for removing this particular website and we can discuss it. A bit of research shows that this website has been cited by at least one outside sources, such as [The City of Winnipeg's tourism website] and that this website has been around since 2007. This suggests that the ChrisD's website may have some notability, but I am willing to discuss it.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you have a personal agenda. Winnipeg Alternative Media has been actively involved in the fluoride issue with there sister organization Fluoride Free Winnipeg (See [[1] CTV Article featuring video footage from Winnipeg Alternative Media] [[2] CBC Article discussing Fluoride Free Winnipeg]. They are not just "discussing it" they are running the campaigns for it.

In regards to the idea of removing ChrisD.ca. You have stated the reasons for removing Winnipeg Alternative Media are as follows. It is "entirely online, with no print or non-online distribution". Just as ChrisD.ca and what the section Web Media is about. It has "been in existence for less than six months" (which is not the case). It has not been cited as a "legitimate media source". How often do you see news organizations citing there competition. Such is the reason those two articles were published under the name Fluoride Free Winnipeg rather then Winnipeg Alternative Media. However if you watch the video on CTV you can clearly see at least one member wearing a tshirt brandishing the old Winnipeg Alternative Media logo.

The issues you have brought up and the claims you have falsely made all seem to indicate you have a personal agenda against this media organization. Please refrain from removing it or any others in the future without doing your own research. X9a3k (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether an editor has a personal agenda or not, Wikipedia require that edits be based on non-biased revisions to Wikipedia. Since you are a new editor to Wikipedia, I suggest you review Wikipedia's policies including the policy on notability. As previously stated Winnipeg Alternative Media does not meet notability standards for web-based media sources. The fact that a source is web-based does not exclude it for being notable, but it means the standard that website has to meet is higher than regular print media.

The website has been active for less than six months. The fact that a bunch of guys talked about it for a year or two without producing anything, doesn't mean that its been active for two years. In addition, this source has never been cited in any other legitimate media, such as CBC and CTV. If you look at the references you quote, neither website mentions Winnipeg Alternative Media. The argument that there is a picture of a guy wearing a T-shirt on the web is not considered legitimate endorsement to the Winnipeg Alternative Media.DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)