User talk:BBenebo

Hello BBenebo. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:BBenebo. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=BBenebo|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 03:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Fancy Refrigerator, thank you for your message. I would like to clarify that I am not receiving, and have never received, any form of payment or compensation for this draft article. This draft is in fact my very first attempt at creating a Wikipedia article.

That said, I will take your concern that it looked like paid work as a compliment on the quality of the effort. Nonetheless, I am a new user here and still very much learning how everything works.

The reason I chose to write this draft is because, as a Nigerian, I have been deeply moved by the recurring problem of building collapses in my country, which have taken thousands of lives. I was inspired by Abiola Aderibigbe’s advocacy for a Nigerian Construction Act as a way of addressing these tragedies, and I wanted to document this in a neutral, encyclopaedic way that serves the public interest.

I fully understand the importance of Wikipedia’s policies on paid editing and conflict of interest, and I appreciate the need for transparency. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding, and I would very much welcome any guidance you may have on improving the draft so it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Best regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources in this article are word-for-word identical articles published on the same day in different newspapers ( ). This is obvious undisclosed paid coverage.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abiola Aderibigbe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MCE89 (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@MCE89, Thank you for taking the time to review this draft. I am extremely grateful.

I would like to respond carefully to the concern raised about the sources being “word-for-word identical articles published on the same day in different newspapers.”

First, on the specific four articles being referred to:

• The Nation (16 Sept 2025) ran “Nigeria deserves construction act to end building collapses, preserve lives – Aderibigbe”, bylined to Our Reporter.
• The Independent (15 Sept 2025) ran “Nigeria Needs Construction Act To End Building Collapse, Restore Investors Confidence – Legal Expert”, bylined to Ikechi Nzeako.
• The Sun (14 Sept 2025) ran “Nigeria deserves a construction act to end building collapses”, bylined to Raphael.
• Brnzeson Media (27 Sept 2025) ran “Legal Expert Urges Enactment of Nigerian Construction Act as report links 1600 deaths to 650 building collapses”, bylined to Chimezie Brown.

These were not published “on the same day.” They appeared on 14, 15, 16, and 27 September respectively, and at least three carry named independent journalists as authors. While the early three share similarities in language, they were clearly published by separate outlets, and the Brnzeson Media item appeared more than 10 days later.

Secondly, and more importantly, these four items represent only a fraction of the total coverage of the subject. Beyond them are:

• Unique profile features:
  • The Nation (23 Sept) — “Abiola Aderibigbe: The lawyer championing Nigeria’s Construction Act”, describing him as “one of the loudest voices on construction reform.”
  • The Independent (23 Sept) — “The Voice Behind Nigeria’s Push for a Construction Act.”
• Event-linked reporting:
  • Multiple articles across The Nation, The Sun, The Independent and ThisDay (20–22 Sept) following the Afriland Towers fire, each reporting his call for reform in its own framing.
  • Coverage of his reaction to subsequent Lagos/Anambra collapses in The Nation (26 Sept).
• Recognition & awards:
  • The Nation (24 Sept) and The Independent (25 Sept) on his shortlisting at the TIBA Awards.
• Additional trade & academic coverage:
  • Articles in ACR Journal, Construction Index, and Security Matters.
  • Peer-reviewed academic proceedings in Elsevier Scopus from the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) and the World Construction Symposium (WCS).

Taken together, this amounts to over a dozen separate coverages across mainstream national dailies, supplemented by specialist trade and academic sources.

Per Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), a subject is presumed notable if there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage cited here is not limited to brief mentions; it consists of multiple full-length features, profiles, and news reports across different outlets, by independent journalists, and supplemented by specialist and academic recognition.

For those reasons, I believe the draft does demonstrate notability under Wikipedia’s criteria, and I would be grateful for reconsideration or further guidance on how best to structure the sourcing so that the strength of the evidence is clearer.

Best regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. You're right that they were not literally published on the same day, but they were published in a very short span of time, which tends to raise suspicions. The fact that they are credited to different authors actually makes the situation even worse! Legitimate outlets would never publish completely identical articles credited to different "journalists". The other sources are also blatant paid coverage or do not provide significant coverage of the subject. MCE89 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@MCE89 Hello, and thank you again for taking the time to provide a response. I do appreciate that you are an experienced AfC reviewer, and that upholding standards on biographies of living people is very important. This is my very first attempt at drafting an article for Wikipedia, and before doing so I spent days reading through the policies and guides to try and ensure I was presenting the subject neutrally and with reliable sourcing.

That said, I did want to clarify a few points:

• The four early reports (14–16 September, and Brnzeson on 27 September) were cited as part of the “first wave” of coverage. I understand your concern that the similarities in wording raise suspicion of syndication, but my understanding is that syndication is a common practice in journalism across the world. It does not necessarily mean the bylines are fabricated, nor that the outlets are illegitimate. The Nation, The Independent, and The Sun are widely recognised, longstanding national dailies in Nigeria with a rich history of public interest reporting. I believe it may not fully reflect their record to suggest that these are not legitimate outlets.
• More importantly, those four reports were not the foundation of the draft. They were included as context, but the article actually leads with and emphasises later independent features and profiles (e.g. The Nation 23 Sept: “one of the loudest voices on construction reform”; The Independent 23 Sept: “The Voice Behind Nigeria’s Push for a Construction Act”), as well as event-driven reporting (Afriland Towers fire follow-ups; Lagos/Anambra collapse reactions) and recognition pieces (coverage of the TIBA Awards).
• In addition to the mainstream daily coverage, there are also pieces in specialist trade outlets (ACR Journal, Construction Index, Security Matters) and peer-reviewed academic proceedings (Elsevier Scopus-indexed, ARCOM and WCS). Taken together, these amount to significant, independent coverage across different domains, which is what WP:GNG requires.

Finally, I must respectfully push back on the implication of “undisclosed paid coverage.” I can confirm again, as I did earlier, that I have never received any payment or compensation of any kind for this draft. As I mentioned earlier, I am a new editor and this is my first article. I drafted it because I was inspired by the subject’s public advocacy around building collapses in Nigeria — a deeply serious issue that has cost thousands of lives. This was a good-faith attempt to document notable coverage on an important public-interest matter.

I fully appreciate the need for caution in biographies of living people, and I am grateful for your vigilance. At the same time, I do believe it’s important that assessments are grounded in the full breadth of sources available, rather than suspicions about individual clusters of reporting. When the wider profile features, event coverage, trade sources, and academic publications are considered together, I believe the draft does meet and exceed the requirements of WP:GNG.

I understand you may remain unconvinced, but I hope that setting out the full range of sources here will be useful context for any future reviewers who may revisit the draft.

Best regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, BBenebo! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MCE89 (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abiola Aderibigbe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder Thank you so much for taking the time to review my draft. I am grateful.

I am going to be honest, I am not entirely sure how to proceed after your comment. Before drafting this article, I deliberately studied the style of published Wikipedia biographies to understand how an encyclopaedia entry should read. I aimed to keep the draft strictly factual and referenced, without editorialising. I understand that this is the level expected of any article going on Wikipedia.

I would like to clarify that I wrote every word of the draft myself. I am a dual-qualified practising lawyer with a strong command of English, and I do have some experience in academic writing (I specifically refer to attaining a masters degree after law school). No part of this draft was generated by ChatGPT or any other large language model. I have tried my best to ensure that every statement in the article is supported by citations to independent, reliable sources (including national dailies, specialist trade outlets, academic works etc.).

I genuinely and fully appreciate Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding promotional tone. If there are particular sentences or sections you feel are too essay-like or promotional, I would be extremely grateful for concrete examples so I can revise them accordingly.

Therefore, please could you kindly explain how I can demonstrate to you, or to any other reviewer, that these are my own words rather than machine generated content?

I am here in good faith, willing to learn and adjust the draft wherever necessary, because I simply want to ensure the subject’s coverage in reliable sources is presented accurately and neutrally.

I sincerely thank you for your guidance, and look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pythoncoder,

Just following up from my earlier message (as I haven’t had a response yet).

To try and address your concern more constructively, I took the step of running my draft through two AI detection tools, following advice from my Wikipedia assigned Mentor (@Kvng, who kindly guided me on this).

The results were:

• ZeroGPT: “Your text is Human written” (12.93% AI) - AI Detector - Trusted AI Checker for ChatGPT, GPT5 & Gemini
• Grammarly Detector: “4% AI” meaning 96% human text. - Free AI Detector | GPT-4, GPT-3, & ChatGPT AI Checker

I understand these detectors are not perfect, but they do reinforce what I have been saying from the start; that I drafted this article myself. No part was generated by ChatGPT or any other LLM.

That said, I fully recognise your point about avoiding promotional tone. To demonstrate good faith, I am happy to move media-attributed descriptions (e.g. “global legal practitioner” or “loudest voice on construction reform”) from the lead into a separate section of the draft. That way, the article remains strictly neutral in tone while still reflecting what independent outlets have published.

I am here to learn and to comply with Wikipedia’s standards. If you are able to indicate specific sentences that feel too essay-like or promotional, I will revise them immediately.

My only aim is to ensure the subject’s independent coverage, which includes multiple Nigerian national dailies, specialist trade outlets, and peer-reviewed academic proceedings, is represented accurately and neutrally.

Thank you again for your time and your service to the project.

I look forward to your further guidance.

Kind regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Like other reviewers commenting here, I have doubts about whether you’re being honest about the authenticity of your writing. AI detection tools are not very reliable at the job they aim to do. After looking at your draft again, I remain confident that I was correct to decline it as LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder Thanks again. I have deep admiration and respect for what Editors do. This is a thankless Job and you are all volunteers. To be so dedicated to your craft commands discipline that isn't easy to come by. Your experience also speaks volumes and I know you must do thousands of these reviews. With that being said, Can I just say how exhausting this process has been?

This was my first ever draft and from the moment I submitted, I immediately had my integrity questioned. I had to explain that I wasn't paid for this. The suspicion being (from what I understand) that my draft was pretty good "too good" in fact. As a practising lawyer I’m used to writing formally, so it is disheartening to see good writing treated as a red flag rather than an asset.

I have genuinely tired to follow Wikipedia policy. The whole while before I started drafting, I practiced in my sandbox, watched YouTube tutorials and read applicable Wiki policies.

After stating definitively that I was not paid for this, then I was told the subject wasn't notable enough. This is evidently false as a quick google search about the Subject would immediately reveal his prominence in the UK and Nigeria. However noting Wiki policies I persevered taking onboard comments and suggestions.

Then your position is that I must have used LLMs. Beyond using AI detectors (which you have said you don't believe are very good -- and I agree) How do I prove I have NOT used a thing? Would it have been better if the English was incoherent, did not sound like an encyclopaedia? And if it was that, would that not have been another reason it would be rejected?

Genuinely, how is it possible for someone to prove they have NOT used something?

@Pythoncoder I know this isn't going to change your mind and I am not trying to. However, I do want you to know that I am engaging in good faith. I really want to get this right. But from my observation, it doesn't appear editors are enforcing policy but rather using intuition or feelings.

I am aware that I do not have your level of experience and I am sure you have seen it all. But the point of being a new editor is to learn from experienced editors like you. Which I understand the Wikipedia editing community to be about. Since I joined its just been accusations and not constructive advice. I guess I am just saying I would have appreciated genuine and honest criticisms not suspicions and accusations.

Again, I thank you truly for your service and for engaging with me because you are not compelled to. If you do read this I wanted you to know I am extremely grateful for the time you have given me and to my draft. BBenebo (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Reading Beans was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abiola Aderibigbe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Reading Beans thank you for taking the time to review this draft.

I would be grateful if you could clarify your reasoning a little further. From my understanding of the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG), the subject does appear to meet the threshold:

• 7+ national daily articles, including full-length profile-style features in The Nation and The Independent.
• Event-linked coverage, such as reports following the Afriland Towers fire and subsequent building collapses.
• Recognition coverage, including shortlistings at the TIBA Awards reported in The Nation and The Independent.
• Specialist trade sources, such as ACR Journal, Construction Index, and Security Matters.
• Peer-reviewed academic proceedings, with publications in Elsevier Scopus-indexed outlets (ARCOM and WCS).

Together, these represent significant, independent, reliable secondary coverage well beyond passing mentions, which is exactly what WP:GNG requires.

If you believe this body of sources does not demonstrate notability, could you kindly explain why, so I can better understand how your assessment aligns with policy?

This would help me improve the draft constructively rather than resubmitting blindly.

Thank you again for your time and input.

Best regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I have this feeling that this article has AI tells and even this reply here. To answer your question, the 7+ national dailies are paid/sponsored posts (read WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA). TIBA is a run on the mill award, it doesn’t contribute to notability. The other points you raised do not point to notability. So, the subject from my own assessment fails GNG and the SNG for WP:ACADEMICS. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reading Beans Thank you for your follow-up. I do feel there may be a misunderstanding here, and I’d like to respond carefully.

To start with, on the question of authorship (i.e. AI accusation): I must respectfully stress again that the draft is entirely my own writing. I’ve already put it through AI-detection tools to reassure earlier reviewers who raised the same concern, and both indicated it was human-written. While I recognise these AI-detection tools are not definitive, they support what I can already confirm in good faith. Essentially, no part of my Draft Article was generated by AI. It does become a little exhausting to keep having to defend my own grasp of English when, as a lawyer, strong written work is simply part of my professional background. I share this not defensively, but to underline that the quality of the prose is no more than one should expect from someone practising in my field.

Secondly, regarding (WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA): the guideline does not declare all Nigerian news sources unreliable. It specifically cautions against sponsored or unlabelled paid content. The articles I have cited are standard news pieces with clear journalist bylines, not press releases or advertorials. Outlets like The Nation, The Sun, ThisDay, and The Independent are established national dailies, and when they run profile-length pieces or event-driven coverage, these qualify as independent, reliable reporting under Wikipedia’s general sourcing standards. To dismiss them wholesale as “sponsored posts” without evidence seems inconsistent with how the guideline is meant to operate.

Thirdly, on notability: the coverage here is not limited to a single cluster of reports. It includes multiple full-length profiles, event-linked reporting around the Afriland Towers fire and subsequent collapses, recognition coverage, and follow-up commentary across more than one outlet. This is precisely the kind of significant coverage that WP:GNG requires (I have read and re-read this!).

Finally, on breadth: beyond the Nigerian press, the subject has been covered in specialist trade outlets (ACR Journal, Construction Index, Security Matters) and has published in Elsevier Scopus–indexed academic proceedings (ARCOM and WCS). These are not passing mentions but substantive publications, and they demonstrate coverage across both professional and academic domains in addition to the national dailies.

For these reasons, I believe the draft does meet the bar for notability under WP:GNG. If there are still specific criteria you feel it fails to meet, I would be grateful if you could spell those out directly.

Otherwise, I am going to be honest, at this point I remain concerned that the rejection is being driven more by assumption than by policy.

Best regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

To meet GNG, sources must be independent of the subject. For the national dailies, I must maintain my position that these are unlabelled sponsored contents. I do not wish to continue in back and forth with you. I do not really care about your professional to be honest, I could also be the president of the US.

You are free to work on another topic or submit the topic for another reviewer to look at. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Reading Beans Thanks for your response. Having read your latest message, it speaks volumes and tells me all I need to know. I’ll leave it here and allow another reviewer to take a fresh look in due course. BBenebo (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abiola Aderibigbe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abiola Aderibigbe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MCE89 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)