John C. Evanko : Based on the article and potential  sources, his "claim to fame" is having been director of a gynecology department where he oversaw a doctor who sexually abused patients (Robert Hadden).  This could potentially lead to notability, but none of the sources I could find provide significant coverage of Evanko.  I also cannot find significant coverage for notability for academics.  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Businesspeople ,  and United States of America .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This appears to be intended as an attack page; if Wikipedia is going to cover this issue it should do it in Columbia University or a subpage.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 14:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the comment.  I didn't mean to create an attack page--I was working on documenting a incident and those were the first pages I put up.  Sorry!  I probably should have created the Hadden page first since I imagine it's worthy of its own page.  Massexodus ( talk ) 14:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks!  Valid point.  I was trying to document a incident that I felt was notable (Hadden molesting more than 245 victims makes him one of the most prolific sexual abusers in New York history) but I did it incorrectly.  Massexodus ( talk ) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The most obvious course would be to try to put a brief well-sourced note in the Columbia University article.  ETA There seems to be abundant reliable sourcing that Columbia paid a large settlement, eg [23] in Guardian .  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 18:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Dr. Evanko has published some interesting papers, as one might expect for a division head at Columbia.  See this Google Scholar search .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a consensus paper, which wouldn't really count, and one paper with 141 citations, but I'm not seeing anything else?  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 17:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:BLP1E , WP:SUSPECT .  As this is a BLP, I have removed the controversy section for now to avoid further damage.  If it is settled that this individual is otherwise independently notable, it may be reinserted with less weight.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Looking a bit more into it, it appears the Robert Hadden page was twice deleted via discussion .  Significa liberdade ( talk ) 16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Does not appear to pass WP:PROF and should not be used as a WP:COATRACK to publicize someone else's crimes, especially given the deletion of our article on the perpetrator.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:05, 13 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete