Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a251bee0c965f25b

Jump to content

Talk:Lil Tay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 19 days ago by Black Kite in topic Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2026

Onlyfans

[edit]

@DRUMERBOI1 you've made edits attempting to add information about onlyfans three times , have been reverted each time by myself as the information appears undue, and have been advised to reach consensus here before trying to include the information again per WP:ONUS which states "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Lets work towards consensus here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Hi, I just now intended to post an edit of the same kind, but I thought to look at the edit history and have arrived here. What do you mean by "undue"? It seems to me that the information is pertinent given her reason for notability, namely the claim of being the "youngest grinder" back during her original rise to fame. This information seems to be a natural continuation of the same arc & therefore of interest to those reading. I did not understand your allusion to undueness, because I don't think that the content gives any undue weight to a fringe theory, on the contrary the (claims of) reaching success on OF appear to have been reproduced in many media. Whether or not they are true, it is good enough to cautiously include "alleged" in there with her claim in my opinion, as the information of the claim's existence itself (like the death hoax) is otherwise pertinent and desirable. What do you think? Kiril kovachev (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
While the onlyfans was just a future announcement I considered it to be gossip, or celebrity pop-reporting, not everything that makes it to the news needs to be added to an article per WP:NOTGOSSIP. However now that the onlyfans does actually exist and has adequate coverage I retract my objection to inclusion.
As for your edit, I think it would be better fit into the "Career" instead of the "Reception and influence" section. I would make some other changes to your edit before re-adding, many of the reported claims are just restating what Tay has said, and WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't cover material that is "unduly self-serving", the specifics of when the material was recorded are playing a part of promoting the onlyfans and can be seen as "self-serving". What do you think of:
"On 3 August 2025, 5 days after her 18th birthday, Tay launched an OnlyFans account. After three hours of the account being open, Tay posted a screenshot on Twitter which showed a gross revenue of $1,024,298." fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@C.Syde65 I think you made this revert in error. I was the editor opposing inclusion and as you can see above have since retracted my objection. There are no other editors who are opposing including information about the onlyfans. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: I guess you could say that. I just wasn't expecting you to retract your objection. I did notice that you had since made another edit to the page. But the fact that you didn't remove the information again only confused me more than anything. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
The section was added to the article prematurely before this discussion finished, but since it appeared that nobody was objecting to its inclusion I decided to let it stay and improve it via editing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

She is not dating rakai

[edit]

She is not dating rakai ~2026-39519-07 (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Evidence? ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2026

[edit]

'Tian started dating AMP member Rakai in April 2025.[19]' The source is not reliable, Rakai is not a member of AMP, and this is not an accurate annotation in the slightest. ~2026-39098-05 (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply