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

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 delete. Based on my assessment of this discussion, the delete argument is based on concerns that the topic violates WP:NPOV and relates to an unused term, with another argument that even if used the term does not meet WP:NEO and WP:GNG 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 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.

On balance, even ignoring the canvassing concerns this seems like a delete consensus as the concerns based on WP:NEO and WP:GNG 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 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 WP:DRV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinazi

Chinazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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

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

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 Russia Today and Le Figaro. Seems to be a hashtag and different from the last AfD. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not much has changed since the last AFD. Article is still a POV synthesis, and the term a WP:Neologism with little usage outside of social media. -Zanhe (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are lots of non-social media sources covering it: Book written by Yu Jie《納粹中國》^[1], Liberty Times^[2], Rai News^[3], if including "just mention the term" there are also Berliner Zeitung^[4], Oriental Daily News^[5], posttoday^[6], RFI^[7], Swissinfo^[8] and more.-AINH (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 WP:NEOLOGISM. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarkH21: In fact, Liberty Times has in-depth coverage of this term. And Rai News has coverage of this term meaning. --SCP-2000 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly "in-depth" - on the topic of "Chinazi" itself, the articles just verify its existence with 2 sentences 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 believes that China conforms to Nazism plus another person who believes that Hong Kongers will be sent to re-education camps. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarkH21:I agree your point and they did not have in-depth coverage. But WP:NOTNEO 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. --SCP-2000 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking along the lines of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG, but even for WP:NOTNEO, these sources still only verify its existence and don't say much about the term. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Supplement: that article mentioned "Chinazi" this term. --SCP-2000 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That appears to be a WP:SPS - 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 WP:GNG per WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - per AINH. POV problem can be solved and no need to delete this article --SCP-2000 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge(2nd decision) If the article needs to be deleted because of WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT, I think this article can merge to Fascism_in_Asia#China because Fascism_in_Asia#China and Chinazi have a similar topic, Fascism in China, so that improve and update the article. --SCP-2000 (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • Fascism in Asia is about actual Fascism in Asia. You would need way better sources for that merge, the kind of reliable sources that would be used to add Fascism to Ideology of the Communist Party of China (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). --MarioGom (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you. Merging to Ideology of the Communist Party of China is better than Fascism in Asia. Also, there are many reliable sources in Chinazi#Background to verify. --SCP-2000 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge to Ideology of the Communist Party of China 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. Joeccho (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that both SCP-2000 and Joeccho are misunderstanding MarioGom's point that we need reliable sources on the CCP being fascist to be able to merge any of this material to either Fascism in Asia or Ideology of the Communist Party of China, but this article is missing such sources. In other words, MarioGom's point is against any kind of merge. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • MarkH21: 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 WP:FRINGE. --MarioGom (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After thinking in today, I think to merge to Ideology of the Communist Party of China and Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests is better than keep "Chinazi" that article. So I change my vote again. --SCP-2000 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM 80.111.44.144 (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC) - Striking sockpuppet--DreamLinker (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - 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.Flag4567 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Existence of a term does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. 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. --MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:MarioGom's view. The article may be attack page against Chinese government. Mariogoods (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mariogoods: In fact, attacking against Chinese government is not violating the policy of Wikipedia. --SCP-2000 (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it does violate Wikipedia policies. Maybe you were thinking about WP:BLP, which does not apply here. But 1) per WP:NOTADVOCACY, Wikipedia is not a battleground for advocacy (attacking against Chinese government), 2) per WP:COATRACK, 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) WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOV also apply. --MarioGom (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 WP:CONTENTFORK. This article just introduce "Chinazi" this new term clearly.--SCP-2000 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable neologism, invented purely for political ends to attack the Communist Party of China. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Neologism. The article looks like an attack page more than anything. None of the examples used in the background section actually use the term anyways. The Account 1 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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). --SCP-2000 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, 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 encyclopedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. I wonder if it is suitable in Wikitionary. (Although this may be off-topic)Mariogoods (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete besides some edits that violated WP:NPOV and WP:OR, I am not seeing very few reliable sources that are covering this term (or even including the term in their coverage). -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. 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.Tree♔ 06:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that hf9631 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Off-topics. 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 Wikipedia into English. I hope you can understand. Thank you!--SCP-2000 (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is about the truth and reflect the truth. If the page is dectribing what happen in the world, it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojvolleyball (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Delete and salt WP:NEOLOGISM is, as others have pointed out, the key policy, along with WP:RECENTISM in general. Furthermore, with sources mainly from RT, there's the question of whether this neologim is part of a WP:FRINGE worldview, in which case the question would be whether sources not expressing that view exist to validate it is a notable fringe position. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is questionable to say this article breach the rule neutrality.--Fourthbus Talk 20:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bdgzczy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Keep, 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 Wikipedia, yet I'm not very active here, I believe myself familiar to the Wikipedia policy. Hope my voice would stay.--JAK (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you'll know that different wiki communities have different notability guidelines. The reliable sources 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 WP:GNG and WP:NEO. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Almost all of the Keep comments here are not making any argument on the points of notability (need reliable sources with significant coverage) and WP:NOTDIC (being a popular word does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia). 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. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, there are some reliable sources, such as Liberty Times^[1], Rai News^[2] , can meet WP:SIGCOV. 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 WP:NOTDIC is not suitable for that article now. --SCP-2000 (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 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.

It is a good source for a mention in Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests, which is already present. But I don't think it is significant to sustain notability for a standalone article. --MarioGom (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The existence of a single article on Liberty Times and a few passing mentions elsewhere do not make for WP:LASTING WP:SIGCOV of this neologism. Furthermore, if the only coverage of this is in explicitly pan-green sources, WP:FRINGE 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? Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 WP:WEIGHT. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223, MarioGom, and MarkH21:I found a source Quartz^[1] that have in-depth coverage about "Chinazi" this term and it's background. --SCP-2000 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: 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 Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests, which already has info on the ChiNazi protest banner. -Thespündragon 01:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 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 Selfie, Singlish and Black Lives Matter.-Angelalive (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC) — Angelalive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please avoid using arguments like "What about article x?" in deletion discussions. See WP:WHATABOUTX --94rain ^Talk 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) See WP:OTHERSTUFF, the difference is that those article you've linked is that there has been substantial, reliable sources covering those terms. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this AFD (and the protest itself) lured way many SPA and sleeper account. Evidence of Angelalive as SPA [1]. 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. Matthew hk (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, it seem canvassed everywhere. See the thread at hkgolden.com https://forum.hkgolden.com/thread/7121207. Matthew hk (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here’s two more posts from LIHKG: Facebook and Twitter. The LIHKG administrator is instructing followers on how to !vote in the comments. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: With Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests. 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 WP:SOAP original argument in the article. Tophattingson (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. Merge to Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests can improve that article quality and update that article. --SCP-2000 (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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.Tophattingson (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] 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. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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 Wikipedia. I believe my explanation of why I am discussing this topic should be sufficient reason to end this suspicion.Tophattingson (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: 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 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. --MarioGom (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 - 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 Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis 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 of it has been a focus of recent reporting.^[2]Tophattingson (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:Neologism, WP:Attack page. This article also contains original research. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 01:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:Neologism. The term itself is not used in the majority of the references, so even the attempt to put it in "context" is largely original synthesis.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2019 (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.