Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjersti Flaa

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 keep‎. Keep presently has the numbers (even when we discard the folks who showed up to be disruptive), and the trend has also been towards keep, with editors switching from delete or weak keep !votes to keep. Coverage has been shown to be both sustained and in depth. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I would weight delete more heavily if the subject were not a public figure, but I can hardly say that in this case. asilvering (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kjersti Flaa

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Kjersti Flaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has not received multiple, independently published secondary sources about her and does not meet the GNG. Reporting largely concerns a few things:

  • The subject's interviews of celebrities. These are not independent of the subject and cannot substantiate her notability.
  • The subject's unsuccessful legal action against the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for not making her a member.
  • Awards from organisations for interviews. These were awarded by the LA Press Club (a wordpress site).

These do not constitute sustained, in-depth coverage of the subject.

After searching for further sources, I cannot find anything to substantiate that the subject has received in-depth, sustained coverage for sources. A controversy she was a part of was notable.

If you remove information from this article that is not explicitly about the subject, there are two sources remaining. Both are about the controversy related to the above film. Recommend deleting this article and merging any useful information to each parent article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm about 60% delete on this one. She is verging on having notability but I can't quite justify a keep. She is the subject of several articles by NY Times, Hollywood Reporter and others, but they are primarily based on the Blake Lively drama. I also can't help but notice that the page was created by User:PaulPachad who was later banned for COI, but there is no trail as to what happened or who was funding the account, and there is an active PR battle going on. I can't tell what's real here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete per nom's WP:BEFORE my comment below, and namechecking the arguments of Gråbergs Gråa Sång, NatGertler and Homeostasis07, which are persuasive. But I emphasise, in case of deletion: no prejudice to recreation by an editor in good standing who is not either a SOCK or up to their ears in COI, which seems to be have been the sole editorship at the moment until this nomination. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC) (Edited 16:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I will highlight that the subject made a video about her Wikipedia article. I expect the subject's fans to show up at this AfD in the near future; they have already appeared on the article's Talk (which has a staggering 2000 views in past 30 days). I believe this article will primarily serve as a battleground for competing views of celebrity drama. I would oppose recreation by editors based on WP:TOOSOON. Subject is an influencer and may become more notable in the future, but right now sustained, in-depth coverage of Flaa simply doesn't exist. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your or my opposition is irrelevant. In any case, "in good standing" addresses your fear. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is staggering. Of course, different countries are involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 629 comments to that video though, that's impressive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have listed many articles and the subject is mentioned in them, but they are primarily about the drama. There is no sustained coverage of this subject. Reviewing what you have provided:
  • (Variety, 2020) is about her lawsuit (belongs on HFPA).
  • (NYT, 2021) and (The Times, 2021) are about the lawsuit, as above.
  • (Nettavisen, 2023), I do not speak Norwegian but the headline translates as "Norwegian Kjersti takes a fierce stand against Hollywood: "People are cowards"".
  • (NYT, 2024) is an interview with Anne Hathaway and Blake Lively.
  • (The Times, 2024) is about her interview with Anne Hathaway.
  • (Variety, 2024) is about her interview with Lively and Baldoni, and the headline describes her as "a journalist who went viral denies being part [...] of smear campaign", and is again about the dispute, not the subject.
  • (People, 2024) is about Blake Lively.
  • (The Cut, 2024) is more movie drama content.
  • (Hollywood Reporter, 2025) is more movie drama content, and frames the subject as "a journalist caught in the crossfire of" it.
  • (Forbes, 2025) is called "Here's what Blake Lively alleges against Justin Baldoni".
— ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subject is mentioned in them, for example the first listed states in part "Kjersti Flaa is used to asking questions. She writes celebrity profiles for Norwegian magazines and does entertainment interviews for TV2’s “God Kveld Norge” (“Good Evening Norway”) as well as her own YouTube channel. But on Monday, she became the story." There's more in the others, perhaps particularly the 2024 NYT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more for the list, 2020, [12], Dagens Næringsliv. And one more from 2020, [13], LA Times. It's about the lawsuit, but there is stuff about her in there too. [14], 2019, Budstikka, I can't access, perhaps some passing Norwegian can tell us about it. It's local, but local is not nothing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are acknowledging that she isn't the primary subject of the coverage ("there is stuff in there about her"), which IMO is enough to say she fails GNG. One day maybe; right now WP:TOOSOON. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find this that's about the lawsuit she started, that can't be in any way relevant to this afd view a bit odd, and you seem to apply it to stuff like [15] as well, but we'll see what the closer does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (This is not to be taken as a !vote in any direction.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just edit-conflicted with you adding exactly that quote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jinx! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fools seldom disagree.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, their website may be Wordpress, but Los Angeles Press Club has a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- if we saw coverage of a novel that included discussion of the author's situation and their motivations for writing the book, we would consider that a sign of notability; it is both direct coverage of them and to a greater degree, coverage of their work. That would seem to me to apply to lawsuits as well; our sources are covering her actions and their impact, and in the effort are covering her situation and motivation. The coverage of the interview foofaraw keeps this from being a WP:BLP1E matter. This is not an out-of-the-ballpark hit (there are biographies we should not have and biographies we fail as an encyclopedia if we don't have, but this is part of the vast "meh" in-between), but it crosses that keep line for me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To cut away all the chaff... if we just look at the August 20, 2020 Variety story and the Oct 16, 2024 New York Times article, we have multiple articles, not trivial in length, that focus from the very start on Flaa -- it may be in relation to a certain event, but she is not an aside or secondary consideration. Both sources are reliable and are national-level sources. They are over four years apart, so this is ongoing coverage, not momentary. They are focused on separate issues, so not WP:BLP1E. Even if these were the only sources we have (and they're not), these two alone should save the article from deletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC). ...and building on that thought, I've upgraded by !vote from weak keep to full keep. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteKeep. I'd say it's a little WP:TOOSOON to declare her notable enough for a Wikipedia page. She's notable, but just barely. There's not much to say about her. Sourcing provided by @Gråbergs Gråa Sång changed my mind. Meets GNG. Enough info to keep.(Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 17:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acer-the-Protogen: Notability is not a moveable scale; a topic is either notable, or not. So barely notable is, in fact, still notable... Actually I'm likely to adjust my above-expressed opinion, following Gråbergs Gråa Sång's sourcing (btw, any chance of adding them to the article?), while NatGertler also argues perspicaciously. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a great point. I struggle with understanding certain parts of Wikipedia policies as a result of my ASD, and it's very helpful when someone points these things out. Thank you. That being said, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång does put forward a good deal of sources. On second thought, I will change my AfD to keep as well. :) (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some, some was there already, more can be added if relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acer-the-Protogen: For future AfDs, I recommend reading the notability policy more deeply; "[an editor has] put forward a good deal of sources" might not be seen by other editors as a meaningful engagement with policy. I recommend reviewing Wikipedia's journalist-specific notability guidelines and deciding how the subject meets these. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists are, of course, not immunized from achieving notability through other means appropriately covered in our the general notability guidelines, where the coverage and not just the achievements are weighed heavily. Putting forth "a good deal of sources" does at least lend to that direction, and denying that might not be seen as "meaningful engagement with policy". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't miss the
"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
part of that guideline. If GNG is considered met, additional criteria are moot. Specific notability guidelines are generally a kind of second chance when GNG isn't met. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The relevant information should be merged with the It Ends With Us Controversy as suggested by ImaginesTigers, as that is objectively 99% of the reason for Flaa's rise to popularity. The other 1% is her HFPA lawsuit and that is already included in the Controversies page there). There's really nothing else that remarkable to this person (other than these two controversies, one of which is still "alleged") for them to have their separate article (yet). The sources listed above clearly show the same thing. ChirstyFlop (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC) — ChirstyFlop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: We should be very wary of attempts to wipe out this information at this time. Given the intense effort to suppress what is in fact true - this article is factually true - and given intense interest in suppressing it as very likely part of a power struggle, we should allow this article to remain in place at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvoss9000 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC) — Mvoss9000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: I disagree with the OP's interpretation of the listed sources. Per this source, the subject initiated a multi-million dollar discrimination lawsuit against the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which led to an investigation by the Los Angeles Times, which instigated a mass boycott of the 79th Golden Globe Awards by actors and media companies, which resulted in NBC's refusal to broadcast the ceremony that year, which resulted in HFPA "pledging to reform its admission process, expand its membership and add a significant number of Black journalists." That's quite an exceptional and notable chain of events, all initiated by Kjersti Flaa. That alone is clearly significant enough to merit an article on the subject. That this information can also be included at the Hollywood Foreign Press Association article is no justification for this article's deletion, per the criteria at WP:GNG. And that's just my examination of one of the listed sources. See commentary above from Gråbergs Gråa Sång and NatGertler for even more in-depth sources. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Homeostasis. Responding because you mentioned me. I still don't think this constitutes SIGCOV but I've argued that enough – my position will be recognised by the closer. I have some follow-up thoughts on this section:
  • "Multi-million dollar lawsuit" is a flattering description of a lawsuit dismissed by the judge as "hopelessly muddled":A judge dismissed the suit in March [2024], calling its [antitrust] claims “hopelessly muddled"(Variety in May 2021).
  • Although that the lawsuit was dismissed in this way, the article spends 4 sentences summarising the lawsuit's claims and 1 sentence on the HFPA response ("PR stunt"). Would an HFPA rep think this was balanced? I certainly don't. It is subtly unbalanced in ways that are flattering to the subject. (Note: This section was written almost entirely by the user who created it—he is currently blocked for COI editing.)
  • One sentence in this section was written by someone else. AfD participant User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång describes the judge's dismissal reason asThe judge found that Flaa had achieved professional success without HFPA membership. Again, very subtly flattering to the subject given the wider context. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:01, 12 March 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kjersti_Flaa&oldid=1281718208"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjersti Flaa, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.