This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
Hi all, am pretty new to Wikipedia editing but just removed an irrelevant link to Andrew Tate, noticed plenty of Tate fans repeatedly adding references to him as the "top g", which are continually being reverted and most likely add zero relevance to this page. Does this not fall under the category of pages linked to popular figures that get locked due to constant vandalism? Coc0a.ctf (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coc0a.ctf and welcome to Wikipedia. It's always nice to see new editors like yourself around. So on Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning. I wouldn't call the edits where people are adding/removing content like this to nessecarily be under that definition. Reading this page might be helpful. Anyways, typically when there's disputed content, my understanding is that people would discuss the issue on the talk page. For further information about protection of pages, see this; it's unlikely that this article would be protected due to vandalism in my opinion. Feel free to request it at WP:RFPP if you disagree with me, though.
That said, the most reliable source discussing this that I can find is The Sun, which isn't actually reliable [1]. Content like this should be verifiable outside of places like memes, user-generated fan sites, The Sun, etc, to be considered worthy of inclusion. This revert by Blaze Wolf is an example of someone else reaching this conclusion [2]. There's also the aspect of this being associated with a living person, which people should be cautious about in general. But theoretically if there were multiple reliable sources mentioning something along the lines of "x person is associated with y song", similar content could exist. See rickrolling for an example of a notable meme.
