Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alisha Kramer


 * 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 redirect to Jon Ossoff. this is a complex discussion. However after re-reading the discussion and the sub thread that led to the reversion of the NAC, I find myself in the same place as the original close. There is a clear consensus here that Kramer's notability is intricately tied with that of her husband and no indication she'd have this coverage if not for her work with her husband's campaign and his subsequent role. Whether Cruz or any non-first lady political spouse should have an article doesn't require the same closing here nor should this close as a redirect be a referendum on any other political spouse who may have a notable career. Star  Mississippi  16:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Alisha Kramer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Completely run-of-the-mill physician resident happens to be married to a U.S. senator. Notability is not inherited. KidAd •  SPEAK  17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom, seems like a regular doctor. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG - WP:INVALIDBIO says That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A), and WP:GNG seems supported by sustained and in-depth coverage, e.g. Who is Alisha Kramer? Jon Ossoff’s fiancee (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2017), Alisha Kramer Has Jon Ossoff's Full Support (Bustle, 2017), Dem candidate for Ga. House seat engaged to longtime girlfriend (The Hill, 2017), Democratic candidate for Georgia House seat Jon Ossoff engaged (The Washington Post, 2017), Who is Alisha Kramer? Meet the Jewish doctor married to Jon Ossoff (The Forward, 2021), Jon Ossoff’s wife Alisha Kramer missed his historic win to work in hospital (The Independent, 2021), Sen. Jon Ossoff and Wife Dr. Alisha Kramer Welcome Their First Child: 'Totally in Love' (People, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. and Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.. My my estimation, the Independent article is the only one that addresses Kramer past a trivial mention. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the two "Who Is Alisha Kramer?" sources are clearly more than trivial mentions because the articles focus on her as the topic directly and in detail, similar to the other articles with her name in the headlines. The Hill and WaPo sources also report on her story, with her biographical details included, so these do not seem like trivial mentions of her. WP:BASIC also states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and this guideline seems to help support notability because of the combined depth available in the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect, a counterfactual analysis (would this person be notable if she weren't married to Jon Ossoff?) is very clearly no. WP:NOT INHERITED applies here. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Jon Ossoff per WP:NOT INHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO. The example given in the latter, Jason Allen Alexander, is instructive. While some sources can be found which expound on the subject, he is only notable for being briefly married to Britney Spears. Another good example of this is Robert Ashton Jr., a thoracic surgeon who, while being borderline noteworthy himself, is only really notable for being the late husband of Jennifer Ashton. If the question was asked, Would this article's subject have achieved an article if not for being married to Ossoff? the answer is no.  Stony Brook  babble 00:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Britney Spears was married to Alexander for 55 hours, so perhaps he has not been the subject of sustained and in-depth coverage similar to what Kramer has received on a state and national level for her biography and career - WP:GNG determines notability for each BLP subject, per the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline and the WP:NOT INHERITED essay. Beccaynr (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You quoted from INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); But you left out the next 2 sentences: relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Now granted, I guess it depends on how we read that semicolon, which is used to link related sentences. I understand it to mean that if the significant coverage comes only as a result of the relationship (as in our case) then it gets cancelled out. To me, that is the only reading that makes sense, for otherwise it goes against the principle stated hitherto. The guideline's authors were probably thinking of a case such as Robert John "Mutt" Lange who, while clearly outshined by Shania Twain still remains super-notable on his own. And while you offered a good retort to the Alexander case, what would you say in the Ashton case, another doctor married for a long time and subject to reliable sources only due to his spouse [Add: and yet has no article of his own]? Had he not been married to Jennifer, would his life achievements and death have been notable? I think not.  Stony Brook  babble 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the sources are always the key consideration - the WP:NOTINHERITED essay also says, The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. I was not able to quickly find an example from my AfD history, but I recall a discussion about a wife of an ambassador where I !voted delete because sustained and in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources did not appear to exist. However, that type of article seems like a good example of an WP:INVALIDBIO with notability only asserted due to the relationship. From my view, the semicolon in the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline is not a caveat that disqualifies significant coverage if it exists, because of the word "unless" in the part of the sentence that precedes it. Beccaynr (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In reference to the NOTINHERITED quote above, and for that matter, the INVALIDBIO quote, I think it is fair to presume that GNG and significant coverage in these cases refers to sources that cover the subject on their own merit, with no mention of how they were only noticed due to the relationship they had with the notable family member. Having to depend on sources which heavily mention this connection (as we see in this case) seems to defeat the whole premise of the aforementioned guideline/essays. This reasoning fits with Alexander, Ashton and Lange (who besides for being a record producer, is also divorced and on his own) while this article is the anomaly. Adding: Even the Lange article depends a lot on Shania sources, but there are others: https://www.economist.com/prospero/2020/07/23/for-back-in-black-the-secret-of-success-was-mutt-lange But more to the point, there is no way that those articles could ever be merged.  Stony Brook  babble 03:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if the guideline and essay did not prioritize WP:GNG, and instead was used to disregard coverage of anyone covered primarily due to their relationship with a more-famous person (despite both the guideline and essay implying this coverage should not be disregarded) we might lose the Doug Emhoff article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Emhoff is not a good reason to keep this article. In WP:NOTINHERITED we read, Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. (emphasis mine). It is obvious that First Gentleman carries as much weight as First Lady &mdash; it even redirects there. We don't attribute the same weight to senatorial or gubernatorial spouses. Iris Weinshall has an article because she is a public servant, nothing at all to do with Chuck Schumer.  Stony Brook  babble 16:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think attempts to rely on perceived technicalities to override WP:GNG are not helpful for this discussion, and I have expressed my view about WP:GNG as well as I can, so I do not plan to continue participating in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep; meets WP:GNG as in Beccaynr's long list of non-trivial articles from perfectly respectable sources that are very much about the subject. --GRuban (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. If someone is only discussed in the context of their relationship with someone else, and in the absence of very substantial, sustained, encyclopedic biographical coverage, they should not have a standalone article. The content present in the sources does not support an individual claim to notability, and the purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to document the unremarkable education and career of everyone related to a famous person. Being able to write a couple paragraphs of basic background info -- something that could be done for just about anyone in a professional field -- doesn't mean anything if there is nothing noteworthy to report beyond that. We regularly redirect nonfamous people to their wiki-notable spouses (e.g. Barry Nobles to Caroline Buchanan), this is perfectly reasonable here too. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The WP:AADD essay suggests we avoid certain types of arguments in favor of deletion, such as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (i.e. The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article) and subjective importance (i.e. A common misconception about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability), and I continue to think the guidelines ask us whether WP:GNG is sufficiently supported for this high-profile subject who has received sustained and in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources. Based on the available sources, she was directly featured in Ossoff's campaign and has been the focus of news coverage, and we have more than basic background information, because she has not been a trivial afterthought in the reporting. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You’ve made your opinion clear. Don’t WP:BLUDGEON the process. KidAd  •  SPEAK  16:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I was just commenting as you made this comment that I have no interest in engaging in wikilawyering and feel I have made my position as clear as I can. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST means We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. It does not apply to, "We do not have an article on y because y is not notable, so we should not have an article on this because this is also not notable. If an article written about Robert Ashton Jr. were sent to AfD, I would !vote to delete, even though both he and Kramer are "high-profile" as you put it. And trying to correctly interpret the guidelines and apply them to articles is not "wikilawyering".  Stony Brook  babble 16:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, she meets GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and JoelleJay. The coverage here is trivial, and it ultimately falls back on her relationship with Jon Ossoff.-KH-1 (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I'm with JoelleJay on this one. I do think Beccaynr has found significant coverage of this person, but it's not an individual claim to notability - she has a greater than normal amount of press coverage compared to a non-famous person, because of her relationship to a famous person. The greater volume of press coverage hasn't really shown that she is an unusually notable person for any other reason. The press coverage exists mostly as a PR function for a politician, not because the press has noticed something notable she has done. -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Our article Barbara Bush is also solely due to significant coverage because of her relationship to husband and sons. Unlike what User:StonyBrook says about Heidi Cruz, below, our article about Barbara Bush clearly says she was not a politician, and stayed far away from campaigning. Yet clearly we need an article on her. Alisha Kramer hasn't gotten Barbara Bush levels of coverage, so doesn't need one of Barbara Bush's size, but she has gotten coverage, so does need an article. --GRuban (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, I quoted above from WP:NOTINHERITED: Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. Bush was a First Lady, while Kramer is not.  Stony Brook  babble 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh. We've also got Stanley Armour Dunham and Madelyn Dunham, only notable as the grandparents of a president, which I'm pretty sure is not a public position, Lolo Soetoro, only notable as stepfather of a president, likewise, Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, only notable as the mother of a president... pretty clearly WP:NOTINHERITED is subject to selective enforcement. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? But while we're at it, I think a case could be made to keep those articles. Being the rockstars that they are, there is a lot of public interest in presidential relatives, especially, but not only, recent ones (see Billy Carter). But a line has to be drawn somewhere.  Stony Brook  babble 13:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment as creator No different than the likes of Heidi Cruz, a notable woman in her own way but all of that attention comes from being married to a Senator or in this case the fact that they weren’t married. Kramer can be notable in her own right garnering reliable sources and the sources will still center coverage on being married to the youngest Senator. Nothing one can do about that but hope for slightly less lazy or sexist journalism practices. So, I can't understand using inherited notable here as a measure while people like John Lennon's non-notable aunt and uncle have articles too. We managed to make 2,000 words of prose here, not a stub. Trillfendi (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After reading Heidi Cruz (and the AfD discussion), I am not entirely sure that article should have been kept as a standalone either. Be that as it may, there is still a big difference between these two articles. Cruz, the wife of a senator who was also a major presidential candidate, is also something of a politician herself, campaigning extensively for her husband, and securing positions for herself during the Bush presidency. Kramer is not a politician, and her husband is not a presidential candidate, so no comparison there. As far as Mimi Smith goes, don't even try comparing Ossoff to John Lennon&mdash;they are not even in the same universe. In addition, the Cruz and Smith content cannot be merged into their respective parent articles without creating balance issues, whereas our short article has no such obstacle. You said, Kramer can be notable in her own right garnering reliable sources and the sources will still center coverage on being married to the youngest Senator. Well, if the sources are centered on her being married to Ossoff, doesn't it follow then that she is not notable in her own right?  Stony Brook  babble 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If Heidi Cruz is notable for essentially taking leave of absence from her job to tag along on her husband's (I can't call it entirely unsuccessful because he did win a primary) campaign and use her platform to fundraise and occasionally make speeches about his character, I don't see how Kramer isn't notable for receiving more or less the same significant coverage for being in her husband's campaign. Not many resident physicians get international coverage with their name in the headline. Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as redirect, with the following comment: The result was redirect to Jon Ossoff. No convincing refutation that the preponderance of reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of the their relationship to a notable politician. Per a talk page request, I am self-reverting and relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect, no independent notability. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment asked for an explanation of my closure and following that asked for a relist and admin close.  FWIW, this is the explanation I gave: "In terms of process, I emphasise, I have only looked at the discussion itself and drew a conclusion from that. WP:INVALIDBIO was a strong argument. But added to that, I think the counter-factual argument (would this person have an article not for their marriage?) gave the redirect argument substantially more weight. Neither the INVALIDBIO nor the counter-factual arguments were directly refuted by detailed source analysis (as against vague waves) which is what would have been required to counter-refute them (if possible). Further, the specific examples of other spouse-redirects were convincingly applied as similar in this case." While I reaffirm that opinion, as a NAC, I feel  made a reasonable request on the basis of a different interpretation and the need for further discussion.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Beccanyr's point about NAC, even though Goldsztajn seems to be on par with admins in regards to closing AfDs, even contentious ones. But in this edit, it appears that WP:CANVASSing has occurred.  Stony Brook  babble 07:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, it looks like I could have added more clearly neutral wording about seeking clarification on how to interpret the guideline. From my view, for a guideline independent of WP:GNG, such as WP:NPROF, examining similar AfDs can be helpful because notability is not necessarily determined by significant coverage. However, lining up WP:OSE for an article that should be assessed by WP:GNG (e.g. per WP:INVALIDBIO, i.e. "unless significant coverage exists" and WP:NOTINHERITED, i.e. "can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG") without examining whether significant coverage exists for each WP:OSE, appears to be a subjective and unhelpful exercise for assessing notability per our guidelines. A more detailed analysis of the sources may be helpful for determining whether WP:SIGCOV exists here, so I created a source assessment table that I think helps show there is significant coverage over time that supports a standalone article:
 * Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still firmly in favor of a redirect. The AJC article explicitly regurgitates details from her LinkedIn and a blog profile in one of its routine, formulaic "Who is X, husband/wife of Y?" special interest plugs. Here's an equally-detailed one about Angela Akins, wife of Sergio Garcia; another one titled "Who is Noor Mateen, wife of the Orlando mass shooter?"; and "Who is Derek Bottoms, husband of Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms?"; "Who is Alicia Etheredge? 5 things to know about Bobby Brown's wife"; and "Who is Craig Coyne? What to know about Barbara Bush's new husband"; "Who is Mary Beth Smart, Georgia football coach Kirby Smart’s wife?"; and "Who is Lauren Hashian? 5 things to know about Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s wife"; and "Who is Angie Macuga, wife of Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank?". All of these are, at most, redirects to their actually-famous spouse. This is not in-depth coverage supporting independent notability, it's mundane trivia scraped from the subject's own social media. The article in Forward is of the same journalistic caliber and style (and one of many such "Meet X, [Jewish] husband/wife of Y" articles in its "Schmooze" section), and to an even greater extent focuses on her relationship with Ossoff rather than her achievements. What little it has to say about her specifically is essentially redundant with what is found in the AJC.
 * Kramer just has no independent claim to notability; it would not be DUE to include anything more than "an OB/GYN physician" in the personal section of Ossoff's page because she is not known for anything outside their relationship. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think what you did can fairly be described as canvassing. As for this source table, I find it convincing evidence that, as JoelleJay has said above, she has no independent claim to notability. She is married to a politician, but is otherwise a normal doctor - one barely out of medical school. If we discount "is wife of x" as a notability claim, we're left with her career (not much yet - she's only been an MD for four years), or her independent media appearances (none in this chart). She's well-positioned to become notable in the future, but right now what she's known for is helping to get her husband elected. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think what you did can fairly be described as canvassing. As for this source table, I find it convincing evidence that, as JoelleJay has said above, she has no independent claim to notability. She is married to a politician, but is otherwise a normal doctor - one barely out of medical school. If we discount "is wife of x" as a notability claim, we're left with her career (not much yet - she's only been an MD for four years), or her independent media appearances (none in this chart). She's well-positioned to become notable in the future, but right now what she's known for is helping to get her husband elected. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment One reason I created the source assessment table was to expand on my previous comment about her high-profile role in the campaign, which multiple independent and reliable sources noted, including her role in town halls and campaign ads. She also was a topic in The New Yorker and CNN, and there is commentary about the 'worthy of notice' elements of her role, including the residence issue while she was in medical school and how it was perceived (and also used in a political 'attack'), as well as her career independent of Ossoff, e.g. "Because it’s 2021, and that's what a political spouse does." The sources do not appear to consider her a 'normal' doctor, or a 'normal' political spouse, and these unusual aspects have received coverage over time, with in-depth biographical information that we look for when building BLPs. Beccaynr (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A little history lesson. The February 2016 version of WP:INHERIT read: Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. (emphasis mine) Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. For instance, being married to the Governor of Arkansas does not make the spouse notable, whereas being married to the President of the United States typically does, after 1932 at least. (emphasis mine) Being the fifth cousin of a President of the United States does not make a person notable (unless the fifth cousin in question goes on to become President himself). Then along came a sockpuppet account that opened a discussion contesting this wording at, at the conclusion of which it was decided to take this wording out. That same sockpuppet account later went on to use this new wording in the Heidi Cruz AfD discussion to great effect, getting the article kept, when I am not so sure that it should have been. So, in contrast to the above accusation of "wikilawyering", my contention is that the correct wording was "jumbled" unnecessarily, resulting in the current misunderstandings. In short, I would be in favor of reinstating the original wording, or at the very least interpreting the essay in a way that reflects the original wording, with the result that this article gets redirected.  Stony Brook  babble 18:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Even under a stricter standard that is not currently supported by consensus in an essay nor reflected in the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, it seems clear Kramer is considered notable "in her own right" because of the reporting focused on her, her high-profile role in Ossoff's campaign, as well as her career and education (including as it relates to his campaign, not only because of it, and not simply 'culled from her social media'). From my view, we need to assess the sources, and avoid subjective determinations of whether an individual is important enough to warrant an article.
 * If WP:GNG is supported, and there is no policy basis to conclude it is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, then there does not appear to be a valid basis in the policies or guidelines to delete or redirect. I used the term 'wikilawyering' to describe my impression of what seems like an attempt to override the GNG by requiring subjective assessments of importance, because that seems to undermine the underlying principles and language of the guidelines.
 * WP:GNG notability is determined by the sources and whether there is independent and reliable significant coverage over time. There appears to be no guideline that allows us to discount significant coverage because of a relationship with a notable individual. WP:INVALIDBIO tells us to delete or redirect when an article asserts notability based only on the relationship, when significant coverage does not exist. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ... it seems clear Kramer is considered notable "in her own right" because of the reporting focused on her, her high-profile role in Ossoff's campaign, as well as her career and education (including as it relates to his campaign, not only because of it ... On the contrary; it is very clear that no one would have taken any notice of this person, her career or education had it not been for her husband, as you yourself seem to admit. As far as the guideline/essay is concerned, consensus can change, including through regular editing. As it stands now in this AfD, the supermajority opinion is that the article subject needs to be independently notable, or, as you put it, "notable 'in her own right'". If the matter of the guideline/essay were to be brought up at the talk page, Village Pump, RfC or similar, with inclusion of the details regarding the shady process in which the language was changed, I dare say that it would be rolled back to the previous version. If that would not be the case, then WP:INVALID and WP:INHERENT might as well be scrapped entirely, in favor of a free-for-all inclusion of all political spouses. Being that these people are public individuals, bits of coverage can be scraped together about any of them.  Stony Brook  babble 21:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to continue going around in what feels like circles at this point, so I only want to clarify that it seems clear to me (and others in this discussion) that "no one would have taken any notice of this person... had it not been for her husband" is not a reason to discount significant coverage, per the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline, which specifically explains that notability of a subject based on a relationship with a notable individual is valid if the subject has received significant coverage. Per the guideline, as well as the current version of the related essay, we do not create articles simply because someone is related to a notable individual, because for most people related to notable individuals, significant coverage is required. Beccaynr (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The coverage of her (entirely routine and expected) role in Ossoff's campaign/career can easily be mentioned in a couple sentences on Ossoff's page. That is to say, basically everything about her that is considered "worthy of note" can more justifiably be considered coverage of her husband (like his residency issues, or commentary on how long they dated). The only things that are left are clearly not encyclopedic (standard activities of the average early-career physician), and those basic details are quite explicitly scraped directly from her/her husband's social media and run in tabloid-esque article series. We could make just as strong a case for every congressperson's spouse and any adult children who took part in their campaign; in fact, we could use that level of coverage to justify articles on every political candidate. If Ossoff hadn't been elected but she had still received the same coverage, would we have an article on her? No, obviously not: because her only claim to notability is inherited through her husband's fame, not through her involvement in his campaign or her own MD work. JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I beginning to wonder if we've got enough for a minyan, yet. :) Being serious though, I've not seen anything new added since the relisting which would cause me to change my view that led me to make my earlier close. However, I wanted to add one point: potentially another way to look at this issue is through WP:CFORK; this is a content fork of Ossoff and we do not have satisfactory grounds to justify WP:SPINOFF. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverture has been abolished in the United States, and the sources focusing on Kramer would create an WP:UNDUE weight problem per WP:SPINOFF because they offer enough detail and depth, including about her independence from her husband. If she had not been a medical student, she would not received the earlier coverage, and if she had not been a doctor, she would not have had the high-profile role she had in his campaign. The coverage is not trivial, nor tabloid or scraped from his or her social media, and the volume and depth of the coverage focusing on her as an independent person is significant. Beccaynr (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first word of your first sentence indicates to me that you are missing the entire point of the discussion. This AfD is not about which gender is superior to the other. It is about which spouse is deserving of an encyclopedia article and which one is not. You also wrote ... if she had not been a doctor, she would not have had the high-profile role she had in his campaign. What does being a doctor, or being any other kind of professional for that matter, have to do with being a good campaigner for your spouse? About Bryon Noem the insurance salesman we read, In a TV ad released during his wife’s run for governor in 2018, Bryon Noem said, “The thing about Kristi I admire the most is her work ethic. It doesn’t matter what she’s doing; if she’s fixing fence, saddling a horse, or working in Congress, nobody will outwork her. She doesn’t quit until she’s done, and that’s the way she’s always been. Bryon the "high profile campaigner" doesn't get an article, even if he would be a resident physician.  Stony Brook  babble 10:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my reference to coverture (e.g. the lack of legal independence from a husband) is understood as anything other than a comment on the only issue I have tried to focus on during this discussion, which is the WP:GNG and whether there is significant coverage, as required by WP:INVALIDBIO for an independent article. I also tried to respond to the subjective "she is run-of-the-mill in my personal opinion, so I will not count the independent and reliable sources supporting GNG" and "she is a wife with no independence from her husband in my personal opinion, so I will not count the independent and reliable sources supporting GNG" parts of the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The AJC article explicitly says it took info on her global health career from her LinkedIn and her blog bio, the same way it cites facebook posts and tweets for coverage of all the other non-notable spouses it "profiles". This isn't some hard-hitting journalism where they interviewed her or researched the impact she had and then wrote up their own independent commentary; they literally just restate basic factoids from her social media. Any coverage mentioning her being a med student was strictly in the context of her husband's residency; there was nothing notable about what she was doing at Emory. Same goes for her medical career: she could be in literally any profession or no profession at all and would get equivalent coverage for being the partner of a politician.
 * Also, the article as it stands now is entirely imbalanced, presenting her relationship with Ossoff as if it's a side note to her "notability" rather than the sole reason for it. Would she have gotten any coverage whatsoever for her medical work or her involvement in his campaigns if she was not with Ossoff? Absolutely not, and that should be the deciding factor for whether she is independently notable. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The AJC article, as quoted in the source assessment table, says "We have requested an interview with Kramer, but for now, here's what we can glean from social media and our own reporting". That the article is imbalanced is not a reason for deletion, because it can be improved with the sources, and her relationship with Ossoff is not a disqualifier, per WP:INVALIDBIO. The guideline does not require so-called independent notability separate from the relationship, and permits someone who has received significant coverage to have their own article even if the coverage arises because of their relationship. She is a notable partner of a politician, due to the significant coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote, That the article is imbalanced is not a reason for deletion, because it can be improved with the sources. Yes, the imbalance can be improved with sources. However, not the kind that say "Kramer is a survivor of COVID-19" or "Kramer is an opponent of vaccine hesitancy". We would need the kind of sources that say "Kramer discovered the cure for cancer" or "Kramer is the 26th United States Secretary of Health and Human Services" (except, you know, WP:CRYSTAL).  Stony Brook  babble 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW, I voted delete, but agree with Goldsztajn's closure as redirect.-KH-1 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. WP:BLP1E: This person testified for Georgia's bill. Cover it within the context of the bill's article or within Ossoff's article. All coverage in this Kramer article is written in context of her connection with Ossoff, not independent of it. Our coverage strives to be proportionate to that of reliable sources. czar  14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.