Talk:Deji Adeyanju
Add topic| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Re: COI banner — article meets neutrality standards
[edit]Hello, I wanted to address the COI banner added to this article. This article has been reviewed and edited to align with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. All content is sourced from independent, reliable sources. I believe the COI tag can be removed. Andyashua (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
AI tag
[edit]Twinkle screwed up and didn't post my reasoning. It is thus:
The original draft of this article contained several hallmarks of AI-generated content, included hallucinated references, random bolding of text, overuse of bulleted lists, and overuse of em-dashes - in addition to just a lot of promotional language. The page has been edited since then, removing some of the more obvious signs (particularly formatting-related) but the text from the original version is largely intact. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- I'd note also that the editor who wrote it has disclosed using AI tools for editing in the past and had one of their comments in a deletion discussion collapsed for being obviously LLM-generated recently. --AntiDionysius (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Request to remove
 | This article may incorporate text from a large language model, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. |
 | A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. |
I think both of these tags have been dealt with at this point, through a series of edits made between May and June 2026, and I'd like to propose removing them. The AI-generated tag pointed to random bolding, bullet overuse, and hallucinated references. The bolding is gone, the lists have been rewritten as prose, and I went through the references one by one weak or unverifiable ones have been swapped out for sources from Premium Times, Punch, Vanguard, Channels Television, Guardian Nigeria, Human Rights Watch, and others. Anything that couldn't be sourced was removed rather than left with a tag indefinitely. For the COI tag, the issues seemed to be tone and content rather than any declared conflict. The promotional language in the lead and law firm section is gone, the recognition section has been trimmed down, and all four controversies now give both sides fair space with proper citations. The "politically motivated" framing is now attributed to specific named individuals rather than stated as fact. I have no connection to the subject. If there's something I've missed I'm happy to take another look, but I don't think either tag reflects where the article is now. ~2026-35898-10 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- I've gone through the article and looked at the concerns raised by these tags. From what I can see, the issues that originally led to them being added seem to have been addressed through cleanup work, better sourcing, and improvements to neutrality. I don't think the tags are still needed in their current form, so I've removed them. If anyone still sees specific issues that need attention, feel free to point them out here for discussion. CoreTechLogic (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
,