Talk:Lil Tay

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2025

lil tay on discord kept emphasising her dob to be born on 2009 and not 2007, its on her discord server's 3 pinned message. please fix this asap, she will release a song not a actual OF. DDosedd (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page and the current consensus is to follow the reliable sources that give a 2007 birthdate. Day Creature (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. We can't take the subject's own claims into account. Especially since her recent claims are implying that she has been lying about being 16 this entire time, according to what I've been hearing from other users in her Discord server. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@DDosedd She was born in 2007, per all actual reliable sources. She used to lie about her age online, but she has since changed this and has stated her official birth date on her social media. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Have the date of birth be disputed with a note. I don’t know any other alternatives. Since most reliable sources is 07 it should be 07. I Am Hunted (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The alternative is to follow WP:V and state only what reliable sources say, which is 2007. There are three sources used currently, one of which is from Lil Tay, that all say 2007. I do not see a need for a note unless it can be shown that there is a dispute in reliable sources. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Indeed. Yes, Lil Tay previously said differently, but this was a lie, and she herself has now stated, multiple times, her birth date as July 29, 2007. Reliable sources state this, with some stating specifically that Tay previously lied about her age. It is no longer disputed what her birth date is. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I honestly hope the people who claimed that she was 16 formally apologise to us for being right about her being 18 this entire time. Since some of us were attacked to death for standing our ground about her age information. I myself received a lot of crap in 2023 and 2024 saying that I just wanted her to be 16 (18 now) because I wanted her to be old enough to consent, which could not have been further from the truth. Like, what the heck? Why would someone my age be interested in someone her age? Make it make sense! ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Onlyfans

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)