Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go woke, go broke

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. and discussions about a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go woke, go broke[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:NOT under WP:NOTOPINION as it tries to advance the political opinion as fact, trying to list various companies that may fit the narrative of the phrase and failing WP:POV without WP:BALANCE being given to any points refuting the political catchphrase opinion with intentional exclusion of many companies that have refuted the claims with WP:CHERRYPICKING of details from refs. I propose deletion of the article as it is inherently an opinion piece and the phrase itself is already sufficiently covered in Woke capitalism, beyond that, the article just appears to try to advance an WP:AGENDA. Raladic (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and Sexuality and gender. Raladic (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Entertainment. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to woke capitalism for now and eventually Corporate sociopolitical activism. The reasons given for deletion are completely off the mark, so let me provide an alternative: this is the same subject as "woke capitalism". I'd say it's a "reaction" to woke capitalism, but the reaction is built into the term -- it's "woke" as used by someone who's objecting to "wokeness" or considers it an undesirable subset of social activism. Some uses are saying the brands are exploiting trendy causes for profit; some don't like that a brand is "shoving [other kinds of people or ways of living] down our throats". In other words, woke capitalism already builds in the criticism that this slogan expresses. In fact, this is already covered in that article to the extent it needs to be, so per WP:NOPAGE why have a separate article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't seen the Corporate sociopolitical activism as an uber article and agree that a merge of both to there would probably be the right move per your proposal. Raladic (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I'm not against a merger of some sort but there definitely is a genuine topic here and it is being covered reasonably well. Sure, there is room for improvement but I don't see the claims of an intrinsic POV that the nomination advances at all. Deletion would be utterly perverse. No opinion on whether Woke Capitalism (which presumably should be capitalised and might or might not even be the same thing as Stakeholder Capitalism as alleged in the Woke capitalism article?) is the primary topic. (I thought that Stakeholder Capitalism was a specific corporate ownership structure where a company was owned by other organisations which have a stake in its operations, not this vague stuff about "wokeness".) On a quick glance, the Woke capitalism article seems to be in a worse state for POV than this article is. I see that Rhododendrites just nominated it for merger into Corporate sociopolitical activism, which seems like a good idea. If both articles get carefully merged there, preserving the majority of the valid content except for any genuine duplications, then that sounds like a good outcome. It might be tricky to do though. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that the phrase is a topic, but the endless listing of claimed examples is advancing a WP:POV with intentional exclusion of companies that have refuted the phrase, but over 800 words of MOS:CLAIMed examples and just 200 for counterpoints - which clearly lacks WP:BALANCE.

I support Rhododendrites's suggestion to merge both into Corporate sociopolitical activism, which I hadn't seen, I had only seen Woke capitalism which I did mention already in the Afd proposal and think covers the topic sufficiently. Raladic (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any merge would make this moot but, just because I love arguing, I will point out that the far-right put an enormous amount of effort into making "Go woke, go broke" into the universally recognised WP:COMMONNAME of this alleged phenomena. They fully succeeded in that part but the wider endeavour has gone sour for them because the "Go broke" part of the alleged phenomenon just hasn't lived up to their hype. Particularly with the success of the Barbie movie, the slogan that they worked so hard to popularise is now mockingly thrown back in their faces. Meanwhile, every time a right wing "anti-woke" enterprise goes bust they are greeted with jeers of "Go fash, lose cash" from the peanut gallery. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you are arguing that people are intentionally excluding companies that have refuted the phrase would suggest that you are not going for a neutral article. In fact I only see only the mention of Elon Musk's Twitter being deleted, and that is something else, not the counterexamples you wanted. In fact, you can say that some of what's given in claimed examples may be also counterexamples (for example, is problem for Target caused by boycott from the other side?) and refutations are given in the claimed examples section. So you trying to do a simple count of words by section is a rather wrong-headed approach. What is actually wrong is that way the whole article is framed, using claimed examples and counterexamples, when what is needed is an examination on a case-by-case basis. Hzh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic, arguing about POV in a deletion discussion isn't usually helpful except insofar as it applies to the entire subject. Here's we're talking about subjects rather than the way those topics are currently written about. If it can be fixed by editing, it's probably not something that needs to come up here. Relevant to deletion/merge discussions are WP:N (which isn't the issue here), WP:NOPAGE, WP:POVFORK, WP:OVERLAP, in very rare cases WP:NOT, and a few others at WP:DEL-REASON. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and yes you are right that WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK are probably the better policies to cite of why it can be deleted/wrapped into the other article. Raladic (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close nomination for an extremely speculative, bad-faith invalid rationale. Like it or not, the phrase is a huge meme with a lot of conservators and mainstream reliable sources cover and reference the phrase. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep, ~~open to merger~~. (Disclaimer: Creator of article) I think that Daniel and HumanxAnthro sum up my opinions perfectly. ~~I'm open to a merger as suggested by Rhododendrites. If a merge is needed, Woke capitalism is probably the best candidate.~~ After more opinions have come in, I do not believe that a merger would comply with Due Weight policies, and if anything, could result in an increased perception of Wikipedia having a liberal bias. Ideally we should be neutral, neither liberal nor conservative, explaining each opinion with attributed debaters as listed in reliable sources, and likewise explaining the most significant rebuttals to it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and not merge. The topic is notable enough in itself as it satisfies WP:GNG, it would be wrong to merge it to a smaller article like "woke capitalism" and distort it (it would have WP:UNDUE prominence in that article). Merging would also carry over the problem in this article to the article it gets merged to. The AfD was started because the nominator got upset over attempts to make the article neutral and accurate including effort to remove unsourced false statement (discussion that led to the AfD here - [1]). The article needs a complete rewrite, not merging. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This nomination appears to be a long-winded WP:IDONTLIKEIT based on an edit war within the article. This is a subject that meets WP:GNG with the current sourcing, and as such needs cleanup, not deletion User:Let'srun 13:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NPOV issues are not for AfD as AfD is not cleanup. The term is covered in many reliable sources and there are also counterarguments to the term such as this from Rolling Stone. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- [reply to previous three keep !votes] Yes, the nomination was kind of a mess, but other issues have been raised since then. Perhaps the nom is doomed because of the way it started, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For sure there are NPOV issues. I don't disagree it needs a lot of work. I just don't see deleting it because of that. We will ALWAYS have a war over politics/politicians/political catchphrases on Wikipedia unfortunately.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly there are problems with sourcing and the article itself needs expansion and rewording. But there is, in my opinion, no basis to delete it entirely as it does not violate the pertinent policies. If the article promotes opinions as fact, as was initially alleged, then let’s make it more balanced not bury the well-documented and distinct subject matter in another article through a merger. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge With all the concerns about content raised, it would be better to cover these issues in Corporate_sociopolitical_activism#Criticisms_and_concerns or Woke capitalism rather than one about a slogan that results in NPOV and synthesis problems. This is more recentism about a few incidents in the last couple years than a coherent standalone topic. Reywas92^Talk 13:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This topic is certainly notable enough. I see no reason to delete something has seen coverage and analysis from various reliable sources. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the expression is notable as demonstrated by multiple sources that reference it. Though the article might use some recycling, notoriety is established and I think any merge would result in undue weight. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's arguably an expression of a group of people like "Make America Great Again" or "54°40' or fight!"; you don't have to agree with the sentiment (after all, agreeing with the latter means wanting the USA to annex British Columbia), but you can't deny that they are phrases that have wide-enough use by people who believe its value. — Fleacollarindustry (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Fleacollarindustry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I think it fits its role well and is fitting and follows Wikipedia's rules. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks perhaps to the flawed nomination, none of the keeps seem to be addressing any of the actual issues and we have arrived at the "keep because bias" stage of the nomination. No objection to a a snow close at this point. Perhaps a merge proposal sometime in the future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that Woke Capitalism supposedly covers the material better. It does not cover the origin or phrase's use nearly as well. It also does not consider what others have said regarding the phrase's use, success, or whether or not it is accurate. It doesn't even cover the Bud Light part very well and almost seems to hold the phrase as true. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it covers it better. AfD is typically about the subject, not the present text. The issue is the subjects overlap substantially such that it would be better to cover them together rather than try to maintain separate, significantly overlapping articles. Merge implies improving the target article using material from the merged article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the subject in question bleeds into the other subjects as much as you are are saying. The phrase is related to CSA, but the phrase's article covers the history, use, and explanations regarding its applicability or truth. Significant coverage has rested on the use of the phrase unlike that which is seen in the CSA article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think an important factor that Rhododendrites (and I, but less eloquently as I fumbled the nomination a bit) is trying to make, which they also brought up further up in the discussion is the policy of WP:NOPAGE, which is to consider the larger context and for this, the larger context is that of Woke capitalism as a concept, and even further that this whole catchphrase is part of tbe larger 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States. And while the catchphrase certainly exists, it is not actually the majority view of the population, and as such falls a bit into WP:FRINGE policy as it is giving the phrase more credit, which could be sufficiently covered in the larger concept article instead if merged. Raladic (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is frankly getting more and more bizarre. WP:FRINGE? Yet arguing to merge such article into another that would dominate that article? The BBC source given in the article in fact says "67% of Americans say their purchases are affected by a brand's stance, while 42% say they have stopped shopping with a particular brand because of its position on an issue." The underlying premise of the phrase (that a brand's stance affects the consumers' choice) is clearly the majority opinion. Even if you cut that number in half, that's still too significant a number to be FRINGE. Don't cite random policies or guidelines without them being clearly applicable. Hzh (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are affected, but not necessarily in the way that the phrase is arguing, which was my point, it is not a majority view that thinks that companies supporting minorities will go broke - that is the dogwhistle that conservative politicians are trying to use. Many people will not support companies that oppress minorities, such as the case of Chick-fil-A and LGBT people, they are captured in your 67% quote, but are very much in opposition to the phrase. Raladic (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. You have nothing to support your assertion. In fact in your Chick-fil-A article it says sales increased. The boycott of Chick-fil-A led to increased sales, while boycott of Bud Light reduced sales, that would in fact suggest that more of 67% are conservatives. Everything you have written here suggests that you are not interested in a neutrally-written article. You want an article that attacks the idea of "go woke, go broke", but you got upset and nominated it for deletion because other people tried to make it neutral. We are not here to attack one side or the other, we are here to write the article in as neutral and as accurate a possible. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Applying fringe to this sounds like applying it to something like "no justice no peace" (fringe because people say this phrase during times of peaceful protest, without significant conflicts, etc.). That said, the Chick Fil-A example illustrates the extent to which the subject is actually corporations taking political stands (and the effects). There are lots of ways to express that subject. One expression is "go woke, go broke". If "go bigot, turn off the money spigot" or something went viral for Chick Fil-A, that would also be talking about the same subject. That it went viral and people say it add so little to the overall subject. That's why the question should hinge on WP:NOPAGE -- because we have two other pages covering this subject right now (one about corporate activism and one about "woke" corporate activism in particular) and not WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc., which are all irrelevant (and, Raladic, they provide those who want to keep with an easy way to argue against you without actually addressing the real issue ... YMMV). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other article is about corporate activism, this article is about popular reactions to corporate activism, they are related but different subjects. There is only one that is a duplicate, and that's woke capitalism, which you have already proposed merging into Corporate sociopolitical activism. While "Go woke, go broke" can legitimately go into one of the other, this article is big enough to stand on its own, and merging it would distort the other one. Note that the Chick-fil-A boycott failed to reduce sales, and whatever expression that might apply has no notability. With the problems that Bud Light and other companies are having, "go woke, go broke" appears to be a notable phenomenon. How real this phenomenon is, and the various reactions to it, can be explore in this article in greater details, but would be excessive in the other article. That merging would result in UNDUE has been mentioned by a few people, so I don't know why you think that people are not addressing this. Hzh (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above to woke capitalism as above. The origin of this phrase (and other similar phrases) can easily be incorporated there. This topic appears to suffer from SYN. Some of the references don't even use this exact phrase - for example the first reference from CIM and reference 6 "Building Trust: Exceptional Leadership in an Uncertain World" refers to the term "Get woke, go broke" as being the original phrase while one of the BBC sources introduces an extra word and uses "Get woke or go broke" and the Telegraph used "Go woke or go broke". Sure, they all converge on the same basic idea but it also highlights that this topic title is incorrect and SYN. NOPAGE and NOPOVFORK applies. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are variations of the phrase does not invalidate it (another version was given in an earlier edit - [2]), nor does it make it SYN (there are SYN element in the article but not this). It just happens that "go woke go broke" is the one more commonly used - [3], therefore WP:COMMONNAME. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Trends to justify the title is the very definition of SYN. Can your opinion be sourced? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly SYN when some of the sources (like CIM) use both expressions in the same articles. They consider the variations to be the same thing. Hzh (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.