Jump to content

Talk:WhereIsPengShuai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Covers similar topic and doesn't seem to meet notability Aaron Liu (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the two articles cover the same thing and should be merged. However, I prefer the "#whereispengshuai" title, or Where is Peng Shuai?.
Much like Where is Kate?, the speculation, hashtag, and public/media response seem more notable here than the known facts of her absence. And the WTA ban/reverse. "Disappearance" is probably WP:UNDUE for the title, especially now that she has "reappeared".
PK-WIKI (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hashtag seems like a minor facet of the story. It's not undue, as that is what everyone focused on. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Where is Peng Shuai?" is the "central question" of the affair and is the question and hashtag used by the people bringing light to the matter. The "social media campaign", external concern for her, WTA ban, and the investigation into her whereabouts is more notable than her "disappearance" itself. Merged article should be titled Where is Peng Shuai?.
A central question, “Where is Peng Shuai?”, has represented concern for the star — New York Times
Where is Peng Shuai? For a brief moment during the Winter Olympics last year I had an answer, of sorts, to that deeply troubling question. For there she was, suddenly and without warning... — The Guardian
The word "disappearance" in reliable sources is often paired with qualifiers like "mostly disappeared from public view" or "disappeared from public view" or with 'disappearance' couched in quotes, hence WP:UNDUE to be stated unqualified in the article title. This is especially relevant now that she has re-appeared in various public appearances and is no longer "missing".
PK-WIKI (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social media campaign is only one facet of the four things you've stated. The other four are just impacts of her disappearance and I don't see how they count towards making the hashtag the article title.
I also don't get your argument with undue. NYT also left it in quote marks, and nothing you've said means that sources don't agree that she disappeared, which is what the invocation of undue would lead one to believe. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]