Deletion of Hong Kong Black Police (2nd nomination)

Comment: to Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests#Terminology and epithets or something similar: Looking at the sources in the article and doing a  search in both English and Chinese, I don't actually see significant coverage by reliable sources for  (although I found https://www.ln.edu.hk/mcsln/49th_issue/feature_03.shtml this article from what looks like a Master's degree course/magazine?). I see several passing mentions from reliable sources that verifies that the term exists, but  probably applies. New sources could change my mind
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG||WP:NEO)

Comment: Notability has only increased since the last AfD discussion where I argued for "keep". Sources published since that AfD cover the origin of the term (e.g. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/short-reads/article/3030543/how-hong-kong-slang-terms-police-have-evolved SCMP) and the usage of the term (e.g. https://news.mingpao.com/ins/%e6%b8%af%e8%81%9e/article/20191013/s00001/1570946532681/%e3%80%90emily-online%e3%80%91%e5%8f%b0%e7%81%a3%e5%85%a7%e6%94%bf%e9%83%a8fb%e7%a8%b1%e8%ad%a6%e5%af%9f%e3%80%8c%e9%bb%91%e8%ad%a6%e3%80%8d-3%e5%b0%8f%e6%99%82%e9%80%be3%e8%90%ac%e5%80%8b%e8%ae%9a%e5%a5%bd Ming Pao). This is in compliance with : {{tq|cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)