Talk:Let’s Go Brandon

Political memes
If other political memes get a page, so should "Let's go Brandon" and its referent. I mean even Ted Cruz–Zodiac Killer meme gets a page. See Category:Political Internet memes. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Or at least a redirect here: Presidency_of_Joe_Biden. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Concur that it deserves a page like any other meme. A redirect would be totally inappropriate and insufficient.  Because of coverage in multiple outlets, as well as its history-making notoriety, the meme totally merits its own article independent of the above-referenced related page. - JGabbard (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You fellers know WP won't ever admit its left wing bias though, right. Check out the "Get Woke, Go Broke" section on the Woke article. If you try and talk about it there, they tell you it has to be sourced with reliable sources. If you provide reliable sources, they just argue they're not reliable. Don't hold your breath on Brandon.174.0.48.147 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Brown_(racing_driver) someone actually took it a step further and said that "reliable sources report on trivial stuff so don't worry about it." There is no winning.174.0.48.147 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has certain criteria for reliable sources. Just calling something "reliable" doesn't make it so. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL! Take a look at the Talk page for the "covfefe" article, which is being used as justification for having a Let's Go Brandon article. Someone suggests covfefe isn't notable, someone else mentions the Daily Mail reports on it on the front page which would justify its inclusion. But those same right-leaning sources which justify covfefe are then dismissed as "unreliable" when used to support anything that doesn't fit the ideological narrative WP is pushing. It's inconsistent and transparent.174.0.48.147 (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * People can WP:OTHERSTUFF until they are blue in the face and it won’t change that consistently is the only gateway to credibility. 2600:1700:1111:5940:C48:3D3F:1F89:7191 (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is deprecated in general, as are several left-leaning sources. See WP:DAILYMAIL. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Why can't thy just say they're biased? Let's Go Brandon has been removed from any related page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.11.224 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GhostOfDanGurney should get started on AfD'ing all of these articles: Wikipedia: Category:Political Internet memes. I won't hold my breath. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If you actually cared to notice, I primarily edit motorsports articles. I couldn't give less of a shit about that category. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Potty-mouth! Lots of assuming good faith and such going on here!  I'm merely pointing out the political bias of the category and the call for deletion here.  I'm not attacking you in any way.  I don't even know who you are! TuckerResearch (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As a Canadian, I was hoping I could learn more about the background on this seemlingly American right-wing obsession. I was surprised to see no mention of it anywhere on Wikipedia.  Dig deeper talk 04:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)