Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go woke, go broke

Go woke, go broke

[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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:57, 9 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). 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. The article needs a complete rewrite, not merging. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]