Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick I. Moxley
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
— User:John, 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PROF (Wikipedia:Notability)