Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Chinazi (2nd nomination)

2108:- There has been an increasing use of the term "Chinazi" in both real life and on the Internet basis. Examples are, this has been on Twitter trends in certain regions, has been mentioned by multiple magazine columnists, as well as having published books focusing on this topic. As for the issue of having a biased POV, I believe this problem can be solved by adding in EVEN more sources, instead of deleting the article altogether. Keep in mind that the Chinazi term might have an increasing popularity and influence as the Hong Kong crisis continues. In my point of view, I would hope for the page to be kept and constantly edited and updated in order to let it reach sufficient quality. But if you have other opinions, I am all ears. -- 2674:: In addition to what others have brought up, I do not believe that the term ChiNazi is independently notable from the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. Much of the article, namely the Background section, is entirely irrelevant to the term, after this irrelevant information is removed, all this "article" amounts to is 'ChiNazi is a term used to compare the government of the PRC to that of Nazi Germany, mainly used during the Hong Kong protests of 2019". If the information that the term exists is useful, it can be merged into one of the pages on the 2019 Hong Kong protests, such as 2865:. That is where it is relevant. Widespread use outside the context of those protests could be reason to keep a seperate page, but I don't see evidence for that. Information on intent and use of the flag and the phrase in relation to those protests is useful. Hence it should be merged with the page that already covers its use, albeit in less detail. Additionally, sourcing an explanation on why this specific comparison between PRC and Nazis is being made would be preferable to the current 473: 31: 2450:(being a popular word does not merit inclusion in Knowledge). Any editor wishing to effectively contribute and make an argument for keeping the article should do more than say that the term is becoming increasing popular on social media. Bringing up "mentioned by multiple ___" without giving any actual reliable sources with in-depth coverage does not do anything to that effect either. — 2230:. To lihkger, I know that you are following this Article deletion discussion and you want to keep this article , but now your action is off-site canvassing.It will not have any effect of this Article deletion discussion. If you really want to improve "Chinazi" this article, I suggest you can translate that article in Chinese Knowledge into English. I hope you can understand. Thank you!-- 106:

keeping this; in general most of the keep arguments here are not grounded in policy and guideline. Finally merging has not gained a consensus and there are some valid concerns against a merge. Given the massive canvassing, I'll take the advice offered in the discussion here and salt the page after deletion; if folks want to restore it they ought to go to

2383:, the term has been grown to public and it can be easily found and featured in various news reports. FYI the Chinese version is sound as sufficient reliable references are cited. Btw, as a HOF editor in the Chinese Knowledge, yet I'm not very active here, I believe myself familiar to the Knowledge policy. Hope my voice would stay.-- 1041:- at least I don't see evidence of peer review. Furthermore the article only makes passing mention of the term as creation of a single blogger as part of an overall section about the tension between the Leninist multiculturalist framework of the Chinese legal apparatus and Han racism. So it doesn't really contribute to 1883: 2972:

Further suggestion on what information would be relevant as part of the merge. 1 - Timeline of Nazi comparisons by the Hong Kong protesters. Seems to involve reference to events on the mainland, as part of the increasing scope and ambition of the protest. 2 - The specific flag design, origins, use. 3

934:

each. The Rai News article is 4 paragraphs, with 3 paragraphs about one day's protests and 2 sentences about the existence of the "#chinazi" slogan. The Liberty Times article gives 2 sentences that states that the hashtag is spreading in social media, followed by an interview of a social activist who

2901:

Throwing the canvassed template on anyone here who puts anything other than Delete is really quite inappropriate. I am here because I saw a Chinazi flag on twitter and wanted to see if there was any context behind it, looked the subject up on wikipedia, and saw this mess of an article and a deletion

2977:

as an example of useful inclusion of explanation of Nazi comparisons in an article. I would also suggest that context of nazi comparisons is useful for a general audience, and not merely those involved with the protest, because of how provocative such a comparison is. Indeed, the provocative nature

2951:

I think we can all stop adding further canvassing notices here unless a very obvious case comes up. The bulk of obvious cases are hidden under the hat notice already. These happened before the page was protected. Since then, a small number of later comments are from apparently canvassed users, but

2554:

Durante la manifestazione vietata di oggi a Hong Kong, è stata avvistata una bandiera nella folla: una bandiera rossa come quella cinese ma le cui stelle formavano una svastica. Uno slogan formato dalle parole "Cina" e "nazista" era associato alla bandiera: #chinazi. Lo slogan #chinazi è diventato

1936:

This entry shall be kept because the term is associated with many incidents and people, not only limited to HongKongese but also people in other parts of the world, it is a witness of history. An entry shall not be deleted simply because it describes unpleasant matters, or else entries relating to

105:

have not been satisfied; as noted on both pages a term being in use on its own is not sufficient to establish notability and the few sources provided have been contested on the grounds that they are overly short. The deeds of the Chinese government are also not a policy/guideline-based reason for

93:

inclusion guidelines. There is also concern that a number of keep arguments are being canvassed to the discussion. The keep arguments mostly rely on the term being used by non-social media sources, that NPOV issues can be resolved by editing and a number of claims about "truth" and that using the

2009:

This entry shall be kept on Knowledge because it is exactly reflecting how China reacts to Hong Kong in extradition bill, internally to XinJiang, globally to other countries. They are repeating the human’s mistakes in Nazi and destroying human rights and dignity. Keeping this word could help the

964:

is written that "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction).". I think "in-depth coverage" is not the important factor of support this term.

1662:

This entry shall be kept on Knowledge because it is now a widely accepted notion by the Hongkongers, that Chinese CCP government is a regime that have no respect of human rights. This term is put forward to attach the same seriousness, if not more , of the brutality acts of the killing regime.

2613:

I just reread the article, and it, along with its sources, is very definitely about a word, not a concept. The concepts involved are the current PRC regime and the Communist Party, about which we already have articles. As I said before, if there are realiable sources writing about encyclopedic

2933:

Being a frequent editor is not obligatory for participation in this discussion. I do not edit frequently because my limited edits are usually from correcting issues as and when I see them while casually browsing Knowledge. I believe my explanation of why I am discussing this topic should be

1884:

https://scontent.fhkg10-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/69954212_10158060289767448_8532047039964381184_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_oc=AQn5e2OsirRjOpDNuGVzYKbKW9yNuz1oVu_2CyS614VzQgy39MdoVaCTHmB58aBR1cc&_nc_ht=scontent.fhkg10-1.fna&oh=b07bad73a7de4aa31f18a18c428e2528&oe=5DFCEA75

2973:- Possibly finding sources on the protesters reasoning behind the comparison. 4 - There seems to be an attempt to organise a specific Chinazi-focused protest on 29/09/2019 , if this happens and is substantial, then explaining the use of the term is important. I would point to 1785:. And 'Chinazi' is not just a term related to Hong Kong, but reflecting how the international views China and their stance towards Hong Kong issue. 'Chinazi' is not a temporary term but a word that makes influence and help people to communicate more conveniently on the issue. 2315:

I modified my !vote to include that this article should be salted prior to deletion. With the number of SPAs who have been canvassed into this discussion, I'm pretty certain we'll be back here for a third deletion in no time if we don't nip this nonsense in the bud.

2918:

When an editor shows up for the first time since April just to participate in this AfD, and in the process logs more edits to said AfD than they'd logged in the year previous, and when there's extensive evidence of canvassing, I'd say my suspicion is appropriate.

838: 2596:

arises again as it could be argued that their perspective is clouded by their bias toward the government in Beijing. Do you have any evidence that anybody who doesn't have an axe to grind with Xi Jinping has noted any significance to this neologism?

2184:. The imperfect writing and content within the page can be further modified and developed with reliable reference and descriptions. Deletion is not a beneficial way to deal with such newly developed idea which is not any sort of spam or fake fact. 1568:

This article "just" introduces "Chinazi" this new term and does not consist primarily of attacks against Communist Party of China or Chinese government. Also, there are many reliable sources to verify this term (See also AINH's comment).

411: 348: 94:

term highlights the misdeeds of the Chinese government. There are also a few merge arguments, which have been contested on the grounds that the relation of the term to any specific merge target is not clear from the sourcing.

1263:: Yes, that is right. Both articles rely on academic sources to document (actual) Fascism in Asia and the ideology of the CCP. Including this Chinazi stuff there as if it was a proper description of CCP's ideology would be 1486:

First, I think this article has POV problem, but it can be improved, such as add the point of Chinese government, and no need to delete this article. Second, this article did not splint to multiple article and violate

2902:

discussion about it. It's clear to me that there's insufficient notability for this to be a seperate article but that the topic would warrant a section on an article describing tactics used by Hong Kong protesters.

2528: 770: 285: 1962:

This entry shall be kept because the term is already widely spread all over the world and is recognized as a meaningful word. The word is already there and Knowledge is a platform to explain such words.

2792:. For other truly new user and people that take a very long wiki break or re-engaged after a long wiki retirement, there are policy and guideline over here and read those before commenting Afd please. 2884: 2862: 2675: 2561: 1299: 875:

The book is not about “Chinazi”, it is about some kind of “Nazism in China” in general. The other sources just verify that the slogan exists, without any in-depth coverage. Perfect example of

144: 2555:

popolare tra gli oppositori per accusare il regime di Pechino di violare i diritti umani. Altri hanno criticato la mancanza di rispetto per le vittime del secondo conflitto mondiale.

405: 342: 2549:

The Rai source is valid but not significant coverage for "Chinazi". It has one paragraph about the "Chinazi" flag in connection to reporting about a Hong Kong protest. That's it.

238: 480: 2476:. So actually we can write a whole article and just like now. Second, "Chinazi" that article is similar to describe a concept or a thing now, and not describe to a term. So 1592:, so such an article about a term does not belong here. If there are reliable sources comparing the Chinese regime with the Nazis then they should be cited in the relevant 2692:: This article provides good introduction for the term from both historical and etymological approach. If we need to delete it due to NEO, probably we also need to delete 1988:

This entry should be kept. Since it already became a well-known term to descibe the current Chinese government's negative action towards Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

1355:- In the real world, the term is frequently seen in the protests happened in different countries. It is a very concrete concept coined inside the mind of modern human. 693: 628: 1823:. It is not neologism. The term 'Chinazi' is widely used in different social media such as twitter and instagram(over 4000 hashtags) . It is also used in protest. 588: 40: 1922:. The term is gaining popularity in Hong Kong. While we do not have to endorse the use of the term, Knowledge should keep the entry as it has enough significance. 279: 856: 608: 2952:

that should be harmless. We should trust the closer on reading the discussion carefully and pondering the merits of the arguments. Not a vote after all. --

1204:

as criticism to the ideology. The term Chinazi is actually a kind of criticism to CCP ideology, especially on its ideology on religious and human rights.

185: 170: 2614:

topics, which do not include words, that compare them to the Nazis then their content can be considered for inclusion in such articles, in the light of

1396:. Referenced sources do not cover the term. There seems to be no in depth coverage in reliable sources. The bulk of the article serves as a POV fork. -- 245: 1688:

This entry should be kept because it is an accurate description of what is happening in China and the term Chinazi is also a widely accepted notion.

442:

There is no mention anywhere of the actual term "Chinazi" and the only non-social media sources that I could find that even mention the term is from

1295: 1239: 1201: 1172: 1150: 2974: 451: 447: 139: 788: 2409:

in both the Chinese article and the English article don't provide in-depth coverage of the actual term "Chinazi". The term fails notability by

1464:, articles should not be created when they are nominally about a subject (e.g. a neologism) but serve to make a point about something else, 3) 2297:

worldview, in which case the question would be whether sources not expressing that view exist to validate it is a notable fringe position.

1995: 1806: 426: 363: 1326: 393: 330: 2262: 2025: 1909: 1695: 1678: 3131: 2767:, the difference is that those article you've linked is that there has been substantial, reliable sources covering those terms. -- 1838: 489: 119: 2730: 2726: 2134: 1952: 1760:. Already a popular wording on twitter and concerned by international. Very useful and clear when observing or explaining China. 519: 935:

believes that China conforms to Nazism plus another person who believes that Hong Kongers will be sent to re-education camps. —

1016: 165: 158: 17: 2247:. Knowledge is about the truth and reflect the truth. If the page is dectribing what happen in the world, it should be kept. 1978: 1149:

in Asia. You would need way better sources for that merge, the kind of reliable sources that would be used to add Fascism to

387: 324: 2158:, I am not seeing very few reliable sources that are covering this term (or even including the term in their coverage). -- 1630:

The following set of comments were added by new users with few or no edits outside this topic, and are likely the result of

2369: 2130: 1730: 3096: 3071: 2987: 2961: 2943: 2928: 2911: 2896: 2878: 2851: 2829: 2801: 2784: 2751: 2713: 2682: 2662: 2627: 2606: 2573: 2489: 2459: 2426: 2392: 2352: 2325: 2306: 2266: 2239: 2216: 2199: 2175: 2117: 2089: 2072: 2054: 2050: 2029: 2003: 1982: 1956: 1931: 1913: 1842: 1814: 1794: 1769: 1752: 1734: 1703: 1682: 1643: 1619: 1605: 1578: 1563: 1538: 1500: 1481: 1443: 1422: 1405: 1382: 1364: 1346: 1311: 1276: 1255: 1213: 1192: 1166: 1126: 1087: 1058: 1028: 1000: 974: 944: 921: 888: 713: 664: 640: 620: 600: 463: 383: 320: 123: 3083:. The term itself is not used in the majority of the references, so even the attempt to put it in "context" is largely 842: 806: 505: 300: 211: 206: 179: 175: 2835: 1781:. Back to the beginning, it is a popular term in Hong Kong that one of the most influential media is using this term 1712:

More and more media coverage since the XingJiang & Hong Kong Protest CCP government brutality has been revealed

267: 433: 370: 215: 2564:, which is already present. But I don't think it is significant to sustain notability for a standalone article. -- 1782: 478:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

3113: 2293:

in general. Furthermore, with sources mainly from RT, there's the question of whether this neologim is part of a

69: 46: 3032: 3009: 1743:. Very important and popular term. Should add more sources which could be easily found on different news site. 198: 2789:

Well, this AFD (and the protest itself) lured way many SPA and sleeper account. Evidence of Angelalive as SPA

1999: 1810: 97:

On balance, even ignoring the canvassing concerns this seems like a delete consensus as the concerns based on

81:. Based on my assessment of this discussion, the delete argument is based on concerns that the topic violates 2983: 2939: 2907: 2874: 2035:

This entry should be kept as it makes people understand the level of severity about human rights in China.

2021: 1905: 1559: 1554:

page more than anything. None of the examples used in the background section actually use the term anyways.

1330: 1154: 115: 1834: 1765: 2623: 2258: 2068: 1948: 1699: 1674: 1601: 551: 2085: 1790: 399: 336: 261: 3109: 3051: 2585:

The existence of a single article on Liberty Times and a few passing mentions elsewhere do not make for

1974: 1536: 1488: 1465: 1453: 1342: 65: 2790: 2254: 2017: 1901: 1726: 1670: 2046: 1830: 1761: 2825: 2797: 2764: 2738: 2722: 2709: 2650: 2438:: Almost all of the Keep comments here are not making any argument on the points of notability (need 2250: 2064: 2038: 2013: 1991: 1966: 1944: 1940: 1897: 1826: 1802: 1718: 1691: 1666: 1615: 1418: 1135: 636: 535: 509: 2081: 1786: 257: 3080: 3047: 2924: 2679: 2602: 2321: 2302: 2290: 2286: 1970: 1547: 1517: 1393: 1323: 1054: 876: 810: 689: 652: 494: 419: 356: 293: 1722: 1223: 1205: 930:

Hardly "in-depth" - on the topic of "Chinazi" itself, the articles just verify its existence with

2979: 2957: 2935: 2903: 2892: 2870: 2758: 2701: 2658: 2592:

of this neologism. Furthermore, if the only coverage of this is in explicitly pan-green sources,

2580: 2569: 2485: 2235: 2042: 1574: 1555: 1496: 1477: 1461: 1439: 1401: 1360: 1307: 1272: 1188: 1162: 1122: 1083: 1024: 970: 917: 541: 472: 111: 2080:. Deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article.-- 1872: 1713: 443: 307: 3092: 3068: 2847: 2619: 2586: 2529:"La bandiera cinese con la svastica: i manifestanti di Hong Kong associano Pechino al nazismo" 2455: 2422: 2365: 2344: 2126: 2113: 1927: 1597: 1378: 1251: 1209: 996: 940: 884: 771:"La bandiera cinese con la svastica: i manifestanti di Hong Kong associano Pechino al nazismo" 616: 596: 459: 154: 85:

and relates to an unused term, with another argument that even if used the term does not meet

58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3108:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2839: 1610:

I agree with you. I wonder if it is suitable in Wikitionary. (Although this may be off-topic)

64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2916: 2748: 2615: 2593: 2589: 2477: 2473: 2447: 2443: 2373: 2294: 2276: 2220: 2212: 2192: 2098: 1748: 1551: 1527: 1521: 1370: 1338: 1264: 1046: 961: 792: 685: 651:- not much has changed since the last AFD. Article is still a POV synthesis, and the term a 987:, but even for WP:NOTNEO, these sources still only verify its existence and don't say much 3084: 2821: 2793: 2718: 2705: 2510: 1894:

It should be kept as it is a trending word, people have the right to know more about it.

1611: 1434:

In fact, attacking against Chinese government is not violating the policy of Knowledge. --

1429: 1414: 1235: 1176: 1142: 1110: 1106: 752: 660: 632: 2920: 2866: 2776: 2737:

Please avoid using arguments like "What about article x?" in deletion discussions. See

2636: 2598: 2317: 2298: 2167: 2151: 1639: 1469: 1050: 709: 82: 2842:. The LIHKG administrator is instructing followers on how to !vote in the comments. — 3125: 2953: 2888: 2654: 2640: 2565: 2514: 2481: 2465: 2414: 2410: 2388: 2231: 1589: 1570: 1492: 1473: 1449: 1435: 1413:

per User:MarioGom's view. The article may be attack page against Chinese government.

1397: 1356: 1303: 1268: 1227: 1219: 1184: 1158: 1118: 1102: 1098: 1079: 1042: 1038: 1020: 984: 966: 913: 905: 756: 677: 273: 107: 102: 98: 90: 86: 857:"El barrio de Wanchai en Hong Kong trata de recuperarse tras un sábado de violencia" 3088: 3055: 2843: 2644: 2451: 2439: 2418: 2406: 2361: 2339: 2155: 2122: 2109: 1923: 1514: 1374: 1260: 1247: 1231: 992: 955: 936: 899: 880: 612: 592: 569: 557: 525: 455: 202: 1117:

have a similar topic, Fascism in China, so that improve and update the article. --

232: 504:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

2743: 2402: 2208: 2185: 1744: 1242:, but this article is missing such sources. In other words, MarioGom's point is 736: 2532: 2469: 1778: 909: 774: 681: 656: 3033:

https://qz.com/1715719/hong-kong-protesters-defend-their-use-of-nazi-imagery/

2653:

that have in-depth coverage about "Chinazi" this term and it's background. --

2817: 2769: 2160: 1635: 1234:

on the CCP being fascist to be able to merge any of this material to either

1075: 860: 705: 701: 1448:

Actually it does violate Knowledge policies. Maybe you were thinking about

825:"ม็อบฮ่องกงชูธง "Chinazi" ไม่สนคำสั่งตำรวจห้ามชุมนุม รวมพลประท้วงต่อเนื่อง" 1631: 672:- There are lots of non-social media sources covering it: Book written by 2697: 2384: 1302:

is better than keep "Chinazi" that article. So I change my vote again. --

824: 1799:

This should be kept as this accurate described the situation in China.

1180: 1146: 1114: 194: 129: 1861: 2693: 732: 673: 2337:

It is questionable to say this article breach the rule neutrality.--

3010:"How Hong Kong protesters are defending their use of Nazi imagery" 1078:. POV problem can be solved and no need to delete this article -- 2401:

Then you'll know that different wiki communities have different

1491:. This article just introduce "Chinazi" this new term clearly.-- 960:

I agree your point and they did not have in-depth coverage. But

3104:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

789:"„Chinazi" Hongkonger demonstrieren am 15. Wochenende in Folge" 697: 467: 25: 2887:

can improve that article quality and update that article. --

1873:

https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/chinazi/top/?hl=zh-hk

983:

I was thinking along the lines of "significant coverage" in

498:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2885: