Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Hanlon


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bill O'Hanlon

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

Not demonstrably notable as the subject of any reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Zero evidence of notability. Article was PRODed in 2013, but no improvement since. Article has a history of poorly sourced puffery. Sundayclose (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Source Search: Starting with google news... not a lot here.
 * - Alaska Public Media interview about counseling with him as subject matter expert. Possibly notable?
 * - "Honorable Mention" in a songwriting lyric contest (not notable).
 * Mentioned as an exemplar of "clinicians with well-honed active-empathic listening skills and a razor-sharp solution-oriented psychotherapy approach", but only a mention, nothing in depth. Possibly notable?
 * https://www.g**dtherapy.org/blog/warning-signs-of-bad-therapy/ (blacklisted) A user comment here states that Hanlon has been on the Oprah Winfrey show. (Not using this as a source, but as a jumping off point to suggest looking for the Oprah episode...)
 * Now for google scholar... well, it looks like he's written a number of books that come up here. "Solution-oriented therapy for chronic and severe mental illness", "Shifting contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy", "Even from a broken web: Brief, respectful solution-oriented therapy for sexual abuse and trauma" just to start naming a few, but the list seems to go on extensively.  It also appears that Hanlon is well cited by other authors.
 * I went into this search thinking I was going to !vote delete, but now I'm leaning keep. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Solution-oriented X" is a classic example of an over-used corporate marketing buzz phrase. For me, on the contrary, this points me in the direction of what coverage there is being based on relentless self-promotion (which aligns with what @Sundayclose noted about poorly sourced puffery). The third example is definitely trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Contrary to his claim, he didn't develop solution-oriented therapy. It had already been developed and widely used. He just tweaked it a little, gave his version a name, and then wrote a book that really had nothing new in it. More self-promotional puffery. Therapists like that are a dime a dozen; they have little, if any, scientific research to back up their ideas. They write pop psychology books, and publishers are more than happy to make a few dollars selling them. And they manage to get on talk shows, or even host little viewed shows. Being on Oprah by itself doesn't make someone notable. One thing this guy is really good at: promoting himself. But that doesn't make him notable. Sundayclose (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The truthfulness of his claims is less interesting to me than the fact that he seems to be fairly well cited by other academic authors. Liars can be notable, after all, and self promotion can lead to being noticed, which can make them notable, even if maybe they shouldn't be. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of primary material, not a lot of secondary. This is the best item I've found, but unfortunately the "implications" are behind the paywall, so hard to assess for WP:ACADEMIC impact. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are these "academic authors" who cite him? University professors and researchers? His name shows up twice on psycnet.apa.org. Both are reviews of one of his books. One review is negative. The other one is mixed. No citations in peer-reviewed journal articles. Hardly a compelling case for academic scholarship. Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, two scholarly reviews of his books (even if negative) seem like significant coverage to me. Rusalkii  (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rusalkii: Which are the two you are referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant the two mentioned, I haven't actually looked at them myself. If I misinterpreted them then I strike my keep.  Rusalkii  (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sundayclose @Rusalkii: Looking at the various psycnet.apa.org mentions, it appears all are book reviews, i.e.: none are papers citing Bill O'Hanlon on the basis of research done. It would appear that in terms of WP:ACADEMIC, his contributions would appear either negligible or lacking noteworthiness. I suppose the only outstanding question is whether the reviews qualify him as a writer, but most of his books seem to simply get just the single, almost obligatory review from an industry publisher. Evidence of widespread review and commentary appears to be lacking, so I'm not convinced WP:AUTHOR applies either. There appears to be no single standout or seminal work upon which laurels can be rested. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * He's a writer, a pop psychology writer. There is no evidence of any academic scholarship on his part or of citations to him in peer-reviewed journals. I've written a book, and it was published and sold. But it was based more on my experiences working in mental health, not true academic scholarship (even though I'm well-trained in that), and that doesn't qualify me as a notable writer, scholar, or mental health practitioner. Like O'Hanlon, my book got a few reviews, but nothing of much substance. Getting a review or two for a pop psychology book does not rise to the level of notability. I would be embarrassed if someone tried to create a Wikipedia article for me because I am not notable by Wikipedia's standards and there would be suspicion of self-promotion. The only difference between O'Hanlon and hundreds of other people like me is that he has devoted much of his life to self-promotion. His bio fails general, academic, and creative professional biography guidelines. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete based in large part on Sundayclose's well written assessment of the situation here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 25 January 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.