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, consensus is that this is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinazi[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any of the sources here using the term "Chinazi", they mostly seem to be used to back up arbitrary facts surrounding the term rather than the use or notability of the term itself. Neologism. Article is very POV too. Closedmouth (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unverified neologism. The bulk of the article is not about the term "Chinazi" but rather about China's human rights record, and the professed sources are primarily in support of those statements (and don't contain the term). The two sources that do refer or define the term are for the relevant urbandictionary site and for a simple google search, which should be brought into question anyway as, having had a look through a few of the results, the term appears to be used in several different contexts. Also counting against it is the overwhelming POV flavour of the writing. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV Neologism. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-neutral, neologistic bunkum. I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2008 (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.