Deletion of Chinazi (2nd nomination)

Comment: besides some edits that violated  and , I am not seeing very few reliable sources that are covering this term (or even including the term in their coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR)

Comment: 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  original argument in the article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

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  (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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: WP:NEOLOGISM is, as others have pointed out, the key policy, along with  in general. Furthermore, with sources mainly from RT, there's the question of whether this neologim is part of a  worldview, in which case the question would be whether sources not expressing that view exist to validate it is a notable fringe position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: This is an encyclopedia, #DICT|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Per eologism. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per eologism. The article looks like an |attack page more than anything. None of the examples used in the background section actually use the term anyways
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:ATTACK)

Comment: Per eologism, ttack page. This article also contains original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:A)

Comment: not much has changed since the last AFD. Article is still a POV synthesis, and the term a eologism with little usage outside of social media
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:NN|not notable |neologism, invented purely for political ends to |attack the Communist Party of China
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:ATTACK)