From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It seems @Wisconcom is using this site primarily to continue drama from this site and other internet communist communities - ie Wiki#ProleWiki. Lemmygrad is a very obscure site, I don't think we need the article. Christopher (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought this would be in a similar vain to RevLeft. I thought this should be created as an article due to Lemmygrad serving as a major center for many pro-China communities, as well as having its rhetoric being extremely apologetic towards Russia and China. Perhaps I was rather thoughtless about creating this, however. I am sorry if you got that impression. Wisconcom (talk)
Ewww. You may want to remove all the shit referenced by "Wisconcom is back with a banger by Gopnik Award (December 9, 2022) Lemmygrad". This all smells like stupid drama we don't need here. If another site pissed you off, then create a blogspot to rant about it — don't whine here. If you can't find any references to this sit outside itself, i.e., mentions in other media, you might as well delete this before we get the first chance to vaporize it if it ever reaches the main space here. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I have removed those sources, pardon me. I must stress that this is not about me at all. Further, certain outside sources cover this website. Wisconcom (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
It seems pretty irrelevant on a quick Google search.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Still waiting for any reference to this webshite outside of itself. This draft still looks like mindless drama that no one gives a shit about, except for a few poor souls trapped in its dank social web. If nothing is to be found on the greater interwebs, I think this can be speedily deleted. Or, move it to the essay space. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Considering how many of Smith's articles we have and keep, I don't think this is much different. Lemmygrad may not be notable (and unless someone wants to update the site guidelines, notability is not a factor when it comes to articles, at least not the most important factor), but it is missional. Vee (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You have failed to view the sources employed. Just two of the sources used in the initial part of the draft include references to external sites. I have yet to see any "mindless drama". If it is possible to nominate this as an article for deletion, then that should perhaps be done in order to gain community consensus. Wisconcom (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

1. "We have bad thing X" is not an excuse for keeping "Bad thing Y". "Bad thing Y" needs its own justification. 2. Yes, missionally is more important than notability. But really irrelevant stuff is usually zapped whether it is missional or not. Lots of Youtube stuff for example. 3. Just about every link in the article at the moment is Lemmygrad navel-gazing and linking to itself.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)