This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related 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
I'll work on improving the article. Give it a couple of weeks, will have put in some edits by then. -Object404 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fleshed out the article with more citations. Can the notability hatnote be removed now? -Object404 (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Object404: Almost all of the references are still from either Vera Files or an organization or company they are closely tied to (Poynter/IFCN, Facebook, Rappler). The GMA ref mentions them once in the entire article. The GIJN ref is a directory listing, and the Google ref is a listing of articles rated by Vera Files. The ref to Handbook of Research on Combating Threats to Media Freedom and Journalist Safety is impossible to even verify without access to the book, and the Google Books link used in it doesn't show that page. The only ref that could be used for notability is the CPJ ref, though it is a weak one for that. So no, it still doesn't really meet the notability requirements (either WP:GNG or WP:CORP) at this time. I've replaced the hatnote. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vera Files is not "closely tied to" Rappler. Rappler is more like a rival institution in the fact-checking space. It's just that both of them cover a lot of the same fact check spheres and thus receive the same political attacks from disinformation actors. -Object404 (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are both members of IFCN, and it is therefore in their best interest to not be objective when it comes to fellow members. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in their best interest to not be objective when it comes to fellow members" -> That's quite an assertion, one I would like to challenge. It IS in their best interests to be objective towards other members of the IFCN as their reputations are staked on being objective and non-partisan, and these are conditions for being verified signatories of the IFCN. -Object404 (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources cannot be considered independent of the article topic as they have a vested interest in supporting each other. Once notability has been established, those articles can definitely be used for verifying facts within this article, but even then, it would be better to find other sources not as closely related. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many "independent" citations does an article need before being considered notable? Also, are offline sources like books not RS and accepted in Wikipedia? -Object404 (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this question, it appears you are not familiar with the requirements for articles here. An article needs significant coverage in multiple (at least two, though more is obviously better) reliable, independent sources in order meet the notability requirements for having an article. As I noted above, this article currently has one rather weak source that is both independent and significant coverage. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also argue the fact Facebook partnered with Vera Files precisely because it is notable in the first place, as opposed to saying that FB cannot be used as a citation because it is "closely tied" to FB. The ties to FB are after the fact of Vera Files' notability. -Object404 (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply your opinion. Unless you can find a reliable, independent source that states that's why Facebook partnered with them, it's irrelevant. The onus is on you (and anyone else working on this article) to find the sources that support the notability of this topic. If you can't do that, then this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia at this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see current citation count of other sources in current version of article. I believe this passes muster already? Can the notability hatnote be removed now, Nihonjoe? -Object404 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
