Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Zaretzky


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zaretzky

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unable to find sources beyond what is already in the article. The Chicago Tribune contains a brief quote of the subject, but is not an article about the subject so does not contribute much to establishing notability. VQuakr (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news has hits. A major newspaper has an article about him, and another uses him as an expert opinion.  Both are pay per view, so I can't read the entire articles.


 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette : HOW TO TRIVIALIZE ADD: CALL IT A GIFT
 * $2.95 - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - NewsBank - Dec 21, 2005
 * Ken Zaretzky likes to say that if he didn't already have attention deficit disorder, he'd find a way to get it. To Zaretzky, a 49-year-old ADD coach from ...


 * Attention deficit can come with a benefit for some
 * Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Nov 20, 2005
 * Ken Zaretzky likes to say that if he didnt already have attention deficit disorder hed find a way to get it To Zaretzky a 49yearold ADD coach the condition ...


 *  D r e a m Focus  16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can read the full text of the Chicago Tribune piece in the archived location noted as reference #1 in the article; it is a trivial quote in my opinion. Given the similarities between the Post-Gazette and Tribune abstracts, do you think it is likely that the Post-Gazette article represents significant coverage? VQuakr (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Based on the quote it appears the articles are the same and fails to support notability. BTW - The link in the article appears to be a copyright violation as it is copied from the Post-Gazette without permission to reprint indicated and probably should be removed from the article.  ttonyb  (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - which link is a copyright violation? Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer – Per WP:COPYLINK, the first one in the article.  ttonyb  (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, that is spot-on.  Not only is it a link to a possible copyright violation, it also becomes a self-published source (the copied article was on the subject's organization's website) and therefore a unreliable source, because we don't know if it is a true copy.  I have changed it to link to the newspaper's website - even with the debate in progress, it's good to get possible copyright issues fixed straight away.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure how to participate in this discussion as I am new here, but this article should be kept. One of the criteria for establishing notability for a living person is "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Among other things Mr. Zaretzky was the co-founder of BOTH of the professional Organizations in his field (the "ADHD Coaches Organization" and a founder of the "Professional Association of ADHD Coaches"). Both of those organizations websites are cited as references. This is clearly "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He has also presented talks on his area of expertise all over the United States (A number of these have also been listed in the article and several of the organizations he has presented at have been listed (thier websites) as references. Ken Zaretzky, MCC is not notable for having been in the Beatles or having been president of the united states or having been a famous serial killer. He is notable because is is dominant in his field (ie:Coaching, more specifically ADHD Coaching) and for having made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field.". clutz8672  (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.227.194 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)   — 98.220.227.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: That's exactly how you can contribute to a deletion debate.  Don't worry about being new, just have a go and state your case - just like you did.  The guidelines for contributing to a deletion debate are set out at Articles for deletion.  Note that you ought to "disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no evidence of notability.  Claims of notability, including making a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" must be supported by independant, secondary sources.  Quite simply, there are no such sources - either in the article or online.  Newspaper articles quoting the individual or about the subject in which the individual is involved are not about the individual and, therefore, contribute nothing towards a claim of notability.  Similarly with using the organizations as references - the fact that the organizations exist and have websites, doesn't make the individual notable.  What we need is other people - reliable secondary sources talking about the individual and his contribution to the specific field.  Other than self-published websites, there is no such evidence at all.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment:yes, I did start the article but there are a lot of things that have been added. As far as the above comment that there is no such evidence at all this is simply not true. READ the websites that were cited. If you read the ADHD Coaches Associations ( http://www.adhdcoaches.org ) website which is cited as a reference you will see that he is referred to as the founder in a number of places. Does one have to cite which page within the organizations website they say that? On the Professional Association of ADHD Coaches ( http://www.paaccoaches.org ) he is listed as a founding board member on the second page. The talks and presentations he has given for other organizations are all within thier websites which have been cited in this article. Do we have to lead readers to the exact page within an organizations website or assume that readers are bright enough and interested enough to look into the history?

He was given an award by the ADHD Coaches Organization (ACO) at thier conference in St. Louis two years ago that read "To Ken Zaretzky, MCC who Named the ADHD Coaches Organization and who proposed the fundamental definition of what it means to be an ADHD Coach, who served as membership chair, marketing chair and founding board member from 2005 to 2008. With great thanks for your vision, determinination and entrepreneurial zeal without which this organization would not exist." And it was signed by Sarah D. Wright. MS, ACT who was the president of the organization at that time. That certainly sounds like a founder to me. Would it be useful If I were to contact him and ask him to provide a scan of that award? Would that establish that he was a founder? (This information is all on thier website). As far as having a vested interested goes I am in the same field and believe that one of our "giants" belongs in wikipedia. Why has nobody mentioned the ADDitude magazine article about couples with ADHD which is essentially an interview with a couple who were clients of his discussing thier issues and how he coached them through them? The mans picture is even in that article. There is also a link to a television show about ADHD Coaching featuring both him and his client. There is not a great deal of information on ADHD Coaching out there period but an awful lot what does mentions him in it. Just for kicks I googled him and contrary to what I have seen someone else say I got over 6100 hits. Could it be that we are dealing with a giant (notable) figure in a small field? The information out there very clearly proves that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Once again, he isn't notable as a politician, or an inventor or a movie star or as a criminal. He is notable in HIS field. If you'll do a little searching yourself I think you'll find that he is likely the most notable ADHD Coach there is.  clutz8672 (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.227.194 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)  — 98.220.227.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Clutz (who is actually IP 98.220.227.194 ), I think you have made your point.  Let's see where the discussion goes.  We have to be careful in these type of debates that the issues mentioned in the essay WP:BLUDGEON don't come into play.  Cheers, Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. several references (including ADDitude magazine Articles and ACO and PAAC pages which refer to Zaretzky as the founder) Have been added to demonstrate notability.Yesimhuman (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) — Yesimhuman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Unfortunately, the coverage is trivial in nature and lacks the substance to support an article.  ttonyb  (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The coverage is about what ADHD Coaches do. More specifically what he does as an ADHD Coach. There is nothing trivial at all about them. Read both ADDitude Magazine articles that were cited. Do they have to refer to him as god for him to be notable? Clearly he is considered an expert in both articles as well as in the television show that is referenced. You should probably take a look at that too as well as the specific pages that are referenced in the ACO and PAAC websites. All I have seen anyone talking about is a chicaho tribune article. there are a number of other citings and references in that article and there is nothing what-so-ever trivial about them. Yesimhuman (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) — Yesimhuman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Lack of reliable, biographical sources written independently of the article subject and/or his organization. - MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Has received coverage in major newspapers. Has been either extensively quoted or a subject in two articles in a general circulation magazine. Has been the subject of a segment of a television show that has been shown on many PBS stations. Has been a frequent radio guest on many shows (3 are cited). Is referred to as the founder and founding father of one of the two professional organizations in his field (cited) and as a founding board member of the other (cited). Please keep in mind that he is an ADHD Coach, not a baseball player, the types of coverage and secondary sources will be different, but they are absolutely there. ADHD Coaches usually don't get famous. In his field he has. Yesimhuman (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC) — Yesimhuman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. The coverage of Zaretzky in most of the sources is trivial (in Wikipedia that means that it doesn't meet the standard of "significant coverage" required by the notability criteria.  Many sources are merely quotations in an article about something else and in several cases, the citations do not support the claims in the article.  Take the sentence in the article that reads, "He is known in his field as an expert on coaching couples ..."  The sources include a few short quotes from Zaretzky and refer to him as "an ADHD coach in Wheeling, Illinois" and "a life coach in Chicago".  There is no mention of being considered an expert.  So not only is the coverage trivial, the source doesn't support the claim in the article.  Most of the sources have very similar problems.  They simply don't provide evidence of notability in accordance with the notability standards of Wikipedia and it seems they are used to support the Wikipedia article editor's opinion about the subject (e.g. being quoted in a magazine allows Zaretzky to be called "an expert in his field", even though the source makes no such claim, simply referring to him as "a coach").


 * Comment And the articles are both about couples with ADHD. One of them is EXCLUSIVELY about a couple Ken Zaretzky was coaching and he is quoted in it many times. The other was about several couples with ADHD and Ken Zaretzky was the only ADHD Coach quoted in that article (also several times). He has also presented talks at CHADD (cited) and ADDA (cited) international conference several times on "Coaching Couples with ADHD" and all one has to do to find this is look in the cited websites to verify that. Yes, that does sound like expert to me. Of course they were referring to him as "a coach" What would they refer to him as? A Shoemaker? A Neurosurgeon? He IS a coach. His field is Coaching and he is absolutely considered an expert in it. (He is in fact a Master Certified Coach, that's what the MCC after his name means). That's what the article is about. I don't know but this is all looking more and more like a hatchet job to me with "experienced Wikipedians" just looking thugish or mean. However, there is still no more notable an ADHD Coach (His field) in the world than Ken Zaretzky is. And poor inexperienced me believes the references cited very well establish that fact. As far as the thinly disguised accusation of "meat puppetry or sock puppetry go, I personally resent them. I am not Clutz. I do know her however and I agree with her. So would many other people if they were in this "discussion". I came in after she gave up because she felt attacked and can be rather thin skined. I am not. Lets see what you guys attack me with next.


 * As to the assertion (constantly added to everything I post) that I have made few posts or edits prior to this article, Well guys, I'm new here. So what? I'm not really sure that this hostile an environment is somewhere I care to stick around too long either. Keep chasing people away, that should be good for Wikipedia.


 * It is fascinating to me that every time I say something that backs up my position one of two people almost immediatly has to have an answer to rebut or invalidate it. It would seem that "experienced Wikipedians" would just be able to make thier point and "shut up" as I certainly would have had the "experienced Wikipedians" had the ability to contain themselves and do the same. I do have some (although I believe it is correct) emotional attachment to my position because I am in the same field as Mr. Zaretzky is. I'm just dying to find out what your clear and obvious emotional attachment to it is. Yesimhuman (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC) — Yesimhuman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note Two of the three keep proponents are users with edits only on this debate.  One (98.220.227.194) manually signed as "clutz8672", but was logged on under the IP.  Clutz8672 only has edits to the nominated article and talk pages directly associated with it.  Single-purpose account gives guidance on dealing with single-purpose accounts and we need to be careful of making accusations about sock puppetry, meat puppetry or other motives, but I do note and draw attention to the significant contribution to this debate by sngle-purpose users taking the same position in this debate.Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Please see my comment above Yesimhuman (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC) — Yesimhuman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment::Why on earth would an "experienced Wikipedian" want to vandalize the post (a keep of course) by Dream Focus at 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)?

I keep hearing that this is a community, What I see is a group of mean, immature, bullish and vindictive people. I always thought of that as a mob. When will an administrater take a look at this and make a decision so I can go back to playing with adults? Yesimhuman (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the only person who has edited Dream Focus's comment. Please stop inserting text into other people's comments, it is not appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, No. Someone changed the name of the article in the Pittsburgh newspaper. I agree that it is inappropriate to insert text into other prople's comments. I was pointing out that it was done (And it was) as it was to clutz's comments (yes, it really was) and has been done to most of mine. My question was "When does an administrator take a look at this and make a decision so that I can go back to playing with adults?". I believe that this has gone on for over seven days.


 * As to the vandalism of Dream Focus's post which was changing the articles name to "HOW TO TRIVIALIZE ADD: CALL IT A GIFT". Sadly, none of you know any better but those of us in the field are very familiar with the ADHD as a gift theory. It was originally advanced by Thom Hartmann who has written a few books on the topic (actually a friend and colleague of Ken Zaretzky) and he and his theory aren't too hard to find out about. He, of course, is in wikipedia. Many of us in the field believe that ADHD is a gift. But changing the title of the newspaper article WAS ABSOLUTELY vandalizm as was adding "who is really IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx to clutz's post and the silly little tags designed to trivialize me that are added to all my comments. Anyway, when do we get to end this "discussion" and have an administrator make a decision? I obviously think the article should be kept. So do several other people. Severel people don't. There is no concensus and I don't anticipate one coming in the near future. So how do we get an administrator to intercede? I've emailed one or two but haven't heard back from them yet. maybe one of you "Experts" could help get one involved. Or I can keep trying. Yesimhuman (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Alright, I bite. How does the original post by Dream Focus  differ from this existing text?  I don't see the difference.   ttonyb  (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tagging posts from new accounts is standard procedure on deletion discussions, try not to take it personally. An admin should be along to close the debate shortly. Be patient, this discussion is not all that overdue (there are several AFDs that started on the 31st that have yet to be closed, this one should have it's turn soon.) - MrOllie (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2010 (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.