Several English Wikipedia non-content editors (who point blank refuse to contribute content) and one or two German Wikipedians proposed to shut down every single Wikinews project hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, citing reasons from low traffic, what amounts to low quality and low interest reporting from their point of view, non-content editors not being able to contribute, problems with the project they had dating back 2 to 4 years, the lack of original reporting, that maintaining Wikinews costs too much money, the small contributor base, the lack of existence of any original reporting, and that Wikipedia does news reporting better, low traffic, low visibility, that production for Wikinews is not similar in output to CNN or the Associated Press, low traffic compared to Wikipedia, few contributors. Most of the problems are ones that other Wikimedia projects, and when they are not, this analysis is fundamentally flawed in understanding the state of these projects. They presented limited datasets without completing the picture, and their analysis, if they attempted to publish it as news, would fundamentally fail. (This does not even get into the issue of how these folks have ideological problems with the existence of Wikinews and are fundamentally trying to shut down a media organization because it offends them because Wikipedia matters more. Yes, we should shut down neutral, independent, verifiable reporting because it threatens their self worth as Wikipedians and their ability to control Wikipedia. This sounds a lot like media censorship laws being proposed in places like Australia…)
There are several articles, at least in the case of English Wikinews versus English Wikipedia, where the Wikinews Original Reporting article gets more daily page views on average than the Wikipedia article. This is the case for Irene Villa and Teresa Perales, Melissa Perrine, Andy Bor, Shelley Chaplin, to name a few. Wikinews may lack in huge numbers of views, but in some places, head to head, traffic wise it does beat its counterpart.
There have been suggestions that if Wikinews increased its traffic, more editors would follow. This is a conclusion made in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia and Wikinews have both seen increases in views and yet, this does not translate into editors.
The suggestion that Wikinews be merged into Wikipedia is purely academic. While a few people would like this as a way of shutting down Wikinews, Wikipedia communities would singularly reject the idea of including more news stories into the project, especially when notability and original reporting were both factors. (There are people who militantly oppose what they see as all forms of recentism on Wikipedia, including recent sport competitors and competition results and everything in popular culture,) They do not have an administrator core to handle these unique characteristics required for Wikipedia to handle Wikinews culture on Wikipedia.
Beyond that, Wikinews original reporting covers topics that may not get discussed by the media otherwise. Speaking for English Wikinews only, which English language news source provided as much news coverage of the IPC Alpine World Championships, or the IPC Nor-Am Cup? How much coverage did English Wikinews provide for the 2012 London Paralympics compared to the Associated Press? Which Australian news source first discussed the issue of sponsorship for Paralympic athletes with Evan O’Hanlon in the lead up to London? Who discussed the North Korean situation in terms of Guam that wasn’t based on sensationalist reporting that the alleged nukes could hit Guam? Which main stream news source regularly interviews scientists about their news?
At the same time, local news stories are expensive for most international media sources to cover. They do not do them in many cases unless they think they can sell the story onwards for syndication. Trying to find multiple newspapers covering a local topic becomes impossible. Thus, original reporting from the local area is even more important given these news room cuts. Yes, what Canberrans did over Easter may seem trivial and not worth a story at all, but 10 years ago (and even now in some places), such stories kept local newspapers alive as people want to know what is going in their country. We can and do fill this void at times, and even if this is only occasional, it is a very important void of historical importance that we will.
The re-use issue is also important. When was the last time you saw a Wikipedia article reprinted in a local newspaper with proper attribution? Probably never. Since I have been participating in English Wikinews, at least two of my articles have been republished in print, including an article in Sierre Leone and another in British Colombia. You can never tell what will be reprinted. One of my articles was original reporting on the Sierre Leone Paralympian, and the other was a story about urinal usage in Canberra.