User talk:RedBeardBarbarossa: Difference between revisions

An article you recently created, Eugenio M. Rothe, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can’t be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I’ve moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of “Draft:” before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the “Submit your draft for review!” button at the top of the page. SPOOKYDICAE👻 16:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I believe that the subject unequivocally meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, particularly the specific criteria for academics (WP:NPROF) and the general notability guideline (GNG), based on significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources.

The article was carefully sourced to demonstrate notability, and I would like to present a summary of the evidence below, structured according to Wikipedia’s policies.

1. Meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG)

The GNG requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Dr. Rothe’s career has received such coverage from premier academic publishers, national professional organizations, and news media.

Reliable Sources: The article is based on sources such as Oxford University Press, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and university news releases. These are among the most reliable sources for an academic biography.

Independent Coverage: All sources cited are third-party organizations that have recognized Dr. Rothe’s work through awards, publications, and leadership roles.

In-Depth Coverage: The sources are not passing mentions. They include detailed award citations explaining his contributions, academic reviews of his books, and media interviews about his research.

2. Meets Multiple Criteria of the Notability Guideline for Academics (WP:NPROF)

The specific guideline for academics provides several paths to establish notability. Dr. Rothe meets at least three of the most important criteria.

A. Criterion 1: The person’s research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline.

Dr. Rothe’s research on the mental health of immigrant and refugee children has had a demonstrable and lasting impact.

His landmark 2002 study, “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Cuban Children and Adolescents After Release From a Refugee Camp,” provided a systematic psychiatric assessment of children detained at Guantanamo Bay.

This study’s findings—particularly the “dose-effect relationship” between stressors and PTSD severity—have been discussed in media reports and cited by other independent researchers in the field, confirming its influence and impact.

Based on this work, he developed a specialized psychotherapy model for treating refugee children, which was published in a peer-reviewed journal, further demonstrating the translation of his research into clinical practice.

B. Criterion 2: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Dr. Rothe has received numerous prestigious national awards from the premier organizations in his field. These are not minor accolades; they are top-level honors that signify a major impact on his profession.

From the American Psychiatric Association (APA), he has received the Simón Bolivar Award (for contributions to Hispanic mental health), the Bruno Lima Award (for care of disaster victims), and the Agnes Purcell McGavin Award (for prevention in child psychiatry), among others.

From the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), he has received the Jeanne Spurlock Award for Diversity and Culture and has been named a Distinguished Life Fellow, the highest honor the organization bestows, for “lifelong contributions” to the field.

From the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society, he received the Edward B. Harris Award for his innovative medical professionalism curriculum, recognizing it as a best practice in medical education.

C. Criterion 8: The person is the author or co-author of widely-used academic textbooks.

Dr. Rothe has authored and edited major academic books published by Oxford University Press, one of the world’s leading academic publishers.

He is the co-author of Immigration, Cultural Identity, and Mental Health (2020). This work has been described in academic reviews as “comprehensive, readable, and authoritative” and an “essential tool” for professionals.

He is a co-editor of the major international WASP Textbook on Social Psychiatry (2023), a role that places him among the global leaders shaping the field.

Conclusion

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Dr. Eugenio M. Rothe is a notable academic who has made significant, verifiable, and widely recognized contributions to his field. The draft article was built on a foundation of reliable, independent sources that satisfy Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

Given the strength of this evidence, I respectfully request that the you move it back to where it was or otherwise you are more descriptive about your concerns with the current status of the draft. Otherwise I will escalate further to seek resolution. The community is about helping each other get information to readers, its supposed to be a collaborative effort.

Sincerely,

Barbarossa RedBeardBarbarossa (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae The deletion of this article appears to be a misapplication of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. The article provides verifiable, objective evidence from multiple independent sources that Dr. Rothe has “received significant attention” and made “widely recognized contributions specifically to the field of psychiatry (migrant and refugee mental health). Please help me understand why you think the sources are not reliable.

1. The Sources follow the WP:REPUTABLE, WP:PUBLISHED guidelines

The policy states, “Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” The article is built on exactly these types of sources:

Scholarly and Academic Sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP): The policy identifies these as “usually the most reliable sources.” The article relies heavily on them:

Peer-Reviewed Journals: Citations to publications in journals like Psychiatric Services and the Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry are primary sources for his findings but are considered highly reliable within their context.

Major Academic Presses: The article cites two books published by Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious academic publishers in the world. This is a powerful indicator of reliability and notability.

High-Quality Mainstream Publications (WP:NEWSORG): The policy allows for “high-quality mainstream publications.”

The article cites a feature from the Miami Herald, a major newspaper, which discusses his work with refugee children. This is a strong, independent secondary source.

Authoritative Professional Organizations: The article cites the premier organizations in his field, such as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). These organizations are independent of Dr. Rothe, and their recognition of his work through numerous national awards constitutes significant, reliable, third-party coverage.

2. The Article Correctly Uses a Mix of Primary and Secondary Sources per the WP:RSPRIMARY policy stating articles should be based “mainly on reliable secondary sources” and that primary sources must be “used with caution.” The article follows this guideline.

Use of Primary Sources: The article cites Dr. Rothe’s own research papers (e.g., the Guantanamo study) to accurately describe the findings of that research. This is an appropriate use of primary sources—stating what the research found without interpreting it.

Strong Foundation in Secondary Sources: The article’s claim to notability is not based on his own papers. It is based on secondary sources that show the outside world has taken notice of him. These include:

News coverage of his work (Miami Herald).

University news releases announcing his national awards (FIU celebrating an honor bestowed by the independent APA).

Academic reviews of his books, where independent scholars like Holly Ackerman, PhD, of Duke University, have described his work as “comprehensive, readable, and authoritative.”

The awards themselves, which are a form of secondary coverage where an independent body of experts has judged his contributions to be significant.

3. The Article Correctly Handles Affiliated and Self-Published Sources (WP:SELFSOURCE)

The policy states that self-published sources are “largely not acceptable” but may be used for non-controversial information about the subject themselves.

The article correctly uses sources affiliated with Dr. Rothe (his FIU faculty profile and his personal practice website) only for basic, verifiable, and non-controversial biographical facts, such as his job title, board certifications, and educational history.

Crucially, the article does not rely on these affiliated sources to make its case for notability. The notability claims are all supported by the independent, third-party sources listed above. This demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of Wikipedia’s sourcing policies. RedBeardBarbarossa (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae

Furthermore it adheres to the Biographies of living persons” (BLP) guidelines

1. Tone and Style (WP:BLPSTYLE)

The policy requires that BLPs be written “responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.”

The draft adheres to this The language is encyclopedic and neutral. It states facts directly (“He is a Professor of Psychiatry…”, “Rothe earned his Doctor of Medicine…”) and avoids “peacock terms” or loaded language. Instead of making subjective claims like “He is a brilliant researcher,” the article states the objective facts that demonstrate his standing: “He is the co-author of the book… published by Oxford University Press” and “He has held numerous national leadership positions…” The article lets the facts and the sources do the talking, which is the core of the BLP style guide.

2. Balance and Neutral Point of View (WP:BLPBALANCE)

The policy states that “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources” and that articles must be “fair to their subjects at all times.”

The article is overwhelmingly positive because the available high-quality, reliable sources are overwhelmingly positive (i.e., national awards, university honors, positive academic reviews of his work). The draft does not invent praise; it neutrally reports the praise and recognition that has been documented by independent organizations. There is no “Criticism” section because a thorough search of reliable sources did not yield any significant, policy-compliant criticism. To invent or include poorly sourced criticism would be a direct violation of BLP. The article is therefore balanced in that it accurately reflects the weight of the available sourcing.

3. Strict Sourcing with High-Quality, Reliable Sources (WP:BLPRS)

This is the most critical part of the BLP policy. It demands that “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.” It also states that “Contentious material… that is unsourced or poorly sourced… must be removed immediately.”

The draft’s sourcing is its greatest strength and is fully compliant with WP:BLPRS.

High-Quality Sources: The article is built on exactly the kind of high-quality sources the policy demands: Oxford University Press, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), peer-reviewed journals like Psychiatric Services, and major news outlets like the Miami Herald. These are not tabloids or gossip sites.

Inline Citations: Every single claim that could be challenged—every award, every publication, every leadership position, every research finding—is supported by a direct, inline citation.

No Unchallenged Material: There is no unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material in the article.

4. Correct Use of Primary and Self-Published Sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY & WP:BLPSELFPUB)

The BLP policy requires “extreme caution” with primary sources and strictly limits the use of self-published sources.

The draft uses these sources correctly and sparingly, just as the policy dictates.

Primary Sources: Dr. Rothe’s own research papers are used appropriately to state the direct findings of his research (e.g., “The study found that a majority reported moderate to severe symptoms of PTSD…”). The article does not use these primary sources to make novel interpretations or analyses, which would be a violation.

Self-Published Sources: The article uses Dr. Rothe’s faculty profile at FIU and his professional website. According to WP:BLPSELFPUB, this is permissible for non-controversial, non-self-serving facts about the subject themselves. The draft uses these sources only for basic biographical data (like his list of board certifications and educational history). Crucially, the article is not based primarily on these sources; its claims to notability are all supported by independent, third-party sources.

5. Presumption in Favor of Privacy (WP:BLPPRIVACY)

The policy requires that editors “err on the side of caution” regarding personal details and avoid information that is not relevant to the person’s notability.

The article fully respects Dr. Rothe’s privacy. It contains no private contact information, no details about his family (unless they were relevant and widely sourced), and no sensitive personal data. All information included—his education, professional appointments, publications, and awards—is public information directly relevant to his notability as a public figure in the academic and medical communities. RedBeardBarbarossa (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is longer than the article and I’m not reading all of that. If you want to put it more succinctly (like 3 sentences), I’ll have a conversation. SPOOKYDICAE👻 19:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also review the paid and COi policies before unilaterally moving this promotional gibberish into mainspace and you won’t run into these issues. SPOOKYDICAE👻 19:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eugenio M. Rothe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SPOOKYDICAE👻 19:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have a conflict of interest with relation to Eugenio M. Rothe, you should review the COI contribution guidelines. Specifically, a COI editor should not create or move an article into mainspace. Rather, to propose a new article, create a draft and request review by articles for creation, so that an editor who does not have a conflict of interest can review it. A similar process exists if you wish to make substantial edits to a mainspace article for which you have a COI. I have moved the article to Draft:Eugenio M. Rothe. You may submit it to AfC when you believe it is ready (and I’ll put the template on it for you to do that), but do not move it to mainspace yourself again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]