Deletion of Frederick I. Moxley

Comment: NsK92 sums it the basic issues for me, I don't see him passing  (no extensive coverage of him in secondary sources), and so it seems fair to evaluate the impact of his ideas on his discipline via WP:PROF.  While he may be important within his organization, I don't see the reliable and verifible evidence of his impact.  DGG's point is that there has to be considerable impact, even if it is not in verifiable and reliable sources.  I suspect he may be right, but I don't think that suspicion is grounds enough to retain this biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Generally per DGG.  Of course our article should be based on reliable, verifiable sources, which do exist for this person.  The question is how we should evaluate the import of these sourced facts in comparison to more commonly seen   standards.  In light of the fact that his kind of work is not openly published, the best guideline for notablity is positions and appointments, which should thus be weighed heavily. They ''are'' the verifiable and reliable sources for "considerable impact." It is clear his work is thought highly of by his peers, that he is more notable than the average worker in his fields and institutions, that his positions are good evidence for prof criterion #1.   Some of the fields he works in (e.g.. biodefense, counterterrorism) are highly notable to any human being, and hardly need to prove it to us. Notability and importance are not the same as notoriety and easy access to information.  Some similar classified fields (I'm thinking NSA and cryptography) have or had the reputation of being clearly ahead of open academic science, even
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)