Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick I. Moxley (2nd nomination)


 * 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.

This is a delicate close where the nature of "satisfactory evidence" is in question. Important considerations:


 * Evidence - Notability is based on the world taking significant notice (guideline: WP:N) and showing enduring notability (policy: WP:NOT), as evidenced by reliable sources. The evidence does not need to be in academic output, but it needs to exist and there needs to be a consensus that it's demonstrated (WP:NRVE). There also needs to be consensus that based on cited evidence, the subject is sufficiently significant/notable (ie passes "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information").


 * Nature of claims - Claims of subject's notability are based on the subject 1/ having played a significant role in multiple teams, groups, projects or bodies, often as a technical expert, and 2/ having received a range of awards or recognitions for his work. Some of these are evidenced, however several are either not well evidenced, or are challenged by other participants as not good evidence of notability (example arguments: indiscriminate or minor awards, minor grants, or easily obtained memberships).


 * Arguments that cannot carry weight - "it's obvious" (it isn't or we wouldn't be here); "last AFD proved notability" (that's what we are here to decide, so we can't assume it); "has significant students" (teachers don't inherit notability from having good students); "secret role explains lack of coverage" (we can't decide notability from hearsay or negative evidence, if he is significant then other secondary sources will have noticed him too); "Biodefense is a unique and new field making people in it notable" (raised at previous AFD, but notability is not inherited, if sources don't exist yet then we wait until they do)


 * SPA activity - CheckUser confirms that 3 of the 4 "keep" and "neutral" views (14integrity, Hbethe, BrassRatOne) are closely connected SPA's (people visiting just for this discussion) or perhaps the same person. This doesn't invalidate their views but does affect the weight they are given. Also noted that the article writing involved 21 (!) SPA accounts. (The two "delete" SPA's were checked as well).

Of possibly valid arguments, the delete view is the stronger argued. Users like Twoself list specific policies and guidelines that apparently fail to be met. Others such as the nominator and Boltzmann point to lack of evidence of impact, lack of evidence of scientific output, lack of concrete examples of his works, etc. Users like David Eppstein analyze the awards and recognitions cited and find them lacking, in what seems to be a very clean reading of our norms and policies.

The keep and neutral views such as 14integrity draw recognition from his keynote speaking at a major conference (although arguments that notable others gave keynote speeches or that the conference is notable don't add any weight), from the award of a medal which is "the highest award" available, from a minor grant ($50k) from a major body that may be significant, and the subject being a participant in a documentary dealing with his technical field. Previous AFD analysis includes drawing notability from the positions held, despite lack of third party sources attesting to their significance to the wider world.

These are more subjective and therefore we consider consensus - does consensus of AFD participants feel these points show notability? They don't. 14integrity, Hbethe and BrassRatOne all appear to be connected or perhaps the same person (per CheckUser) and are all SPA's visiting Wikipedia for this one specific discussion, so the weight for consensus purposes isn't there, and there is no consensus on most of these points by !vote count either. The "highest award" is not clearly agreed with, the "grant" is small and described by another participant as a routine kind of "seed" grant (presumably grants are given to non-notable people?), the documentary was not "about" him so much as his area of work intersecting Iraq (which was the focus of the documentary and presumably he was asked to comment on it), and reliance on "secret" work is correctly discounted. Other matters (a single paper, keynote speaker, grant selection process) etc might be worth noting in an article but drawing a conclusion that he is notable for a collection of medium achievements is always a difficult one for a BLP subject.

I also considered Bearian's "keep per previous AFD" and looked that up - it seems Bearian may mean "notable due to positions held [DGG/John Z]" but if so he has not given further comments there either.

The delete views being stronger and more clearly arguing from policy, the keep evidence being disputed as to significance and not achieving consensus anyway (as well as most "keeps" being just one or a few very closely connected visitors), and the fact that BLPs in borderline/no consensus cases would be biased slightly to deletion anyway, means this discussion is closed as delete. FT2 (Talk 08:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Frederick I. Moxley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination on behalf of an who prodded the page though it is ineligible for prod due to past AfD. Nomination rationale was "Notability. This person in not a complex systems scientist, otherwise the page should show some concrete example of the impact of his work."

For my part, I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

*Keep for reasons expounded by others in last AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep as I said in the last AfD. I cleaned up the lead. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the more than obvious statement that this person is not notable as a complex systems scientist, nobody knows of him, judged by any reasonable way. Being part of NYAS, is a membership *any* professor get in the mail together with credit card offers!...Scientific impact (more than say thousand citations in the ISI database) is an objective meaure of notability in the field claimed to be contributing. The argument that  he could be working in a secret (non notable) project or in a "hidden" organization, used in the previous discussion is oxymoronic!, non notable persons working in the CIA, for instance, should starts its  "Wikipedia for non notable!". Give me a break, being notable is something really easy to show, and this case is not. The entry says that this person is a scientist in a scientific field, I can not find in the usual databases, (google scholar, ISI, scorpus) any significant impact or notability to support the claim. Whoever say otherwise must  provide clear proofs of notability, not for hypothetical cases, but for this one entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoself (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)  — Twoself (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Minor awards and low citation count. As for the keynote at Worldcomp, I'd be a lot more impressed if it were an ACM or IEEE sponsored conference, but as it is I have nothing to judge its significance by. And how does one become an "elected member" of IEEE? He's certainly not a Fellow of IEEE. I !voted for deletion on the previous AfD and I still don't see much evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * neutral. Having monitored this discussion for the past couple of days, I can not help but wonder if someone has an axe to grind. In all honesty, the comments made supporting deletion seem rather arrogant.  For instance, although not an ACM or IEEE conference, WORLDCOMP is a top-ranked conference in which many noted scholars participate in on an annual basis.  In addition to Professor Moxley, many other notables have served as keynote speakers to include Lofti Zadeh, Ian Foster, David Parnas, Eric Drexler and several others from such esteemed universities as UCLA, UC Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, as well as from sponsoring organizations such as the NSF, NASA, DoD, etc.  It is a top-ranked conference as noted by Microsoft Academic Search based on the number of citations listed. With regard to the comments made by David Epstein pertaining to this conference, as well as Dr. Moxley’s low level awards, he should investigate further.  Dr. Moxley is listed as an elected Senior Member of the IEEE, a Full member of the Sigma Xi – the Scientific Research Society, and has been elected to other well known scientific bodies. With regard to awards, per the Department of Defense, the OSD Medal for Exceptional Civilian Service Award is the highest honor the Office of the Secretary can bestow upon an individual, and thus is not without substantial merit and is recognized at the highest level.  Per the source references on the webpage that he is being scrutinized, Professor Moxley was also selected to participate and then awarded a grant from the National Academies (not a low-level scientific body by anyone’s estimation) based on his work involving complex systems, which seems to be Epstein’s bone of contention.   Based on a web search, he authored a paper dealing with complex systems for an international conference sponsored by the IEEE and was also a co-author on a Best Paper that was recognized by the Society for Risk Analysis most recently.  He also appeared in a documentary that was recently broadcast on the Science and Discovery channels dealing with complex networks.  In summary, maybe some others should be scrutinized more thoroughly based on their level of notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14integrity (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)  — 14integrity (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete This person is not notable under any standard by his scientific production. As for the impact of his research papers, is low in comparison to most assistant professors which are reasonably active in their fields. No scientific theory, hypothesis, etc, can be directly linked to his name. Neither is he notable by his scientific offspring (i.e. students) or as a teacher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis boltzmann (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)  — Luis boltzmann (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Notability has already been established as indicated in previous AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbethe (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)  — Hbethe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep met with him while in Boston - undergrad program under his initial tutelage has produced Rhodes, Marshall and NSF scholars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrassRatOne (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrassRatOne (talk • contribs)  — BrassRatOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Financial Liquidity and Network Theory - $50,000 Financial markets are highly complex networks of institutions and transactions through which liquidity, i.e., the flow of credit, enhances economic activity. These researchers will models these networks to provide understanding, prediction, and some degree of control of this important economic factor." The bottom line here is that  this type of small grants are not given in recognition of trajectory and then should not be taken  as a proof of notability.  4-The comment concerning " authored a paper dealing with complex systems for an international conference sponsored by the IEEE and was also a co-author on a Best Paper that was recognized by the Society for Risk Analysis most recently" is not adding any substantial merits for notability, to be notable it will be necessary that hundreds of papers cite  any of these two papers, which is not the case.  5- Concerning the documentary, I agree that it is important but  also it can be argued that the material is more about Sadam than  about Prof. Moxley work.  As I said above, the editor should show proofs of impact beyond what it is already in the entry, which is insufficient to prevent deletion.Twoself (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — Twoself (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete As suggested above, the point is notability as a a scientist: 1-The discussion in favor of notability based on a talk in 2008 should be dropped, if were to be important, the editor should find another talk in the period 2008-2011, since it is common for scientists of impact  to be invited regularly. I could not find any.  2-Concerning the awards, I disagree with the weight given to the medal of Secretary of Defense Exceptional Civilian Service Award as "the highest honor". Indeed that medal as the *only* medal of the Office of the Secretary, and it can be given several times to the same individual during his/her life.  3-Concerning the grant received from the National Academies, it is a small "seed" grant which usually is distributed by a speedy steering committee (not peer reviewed) to promote new areas of research, but not in recognition of particular merits of the candidate.  The description and details of the process can be found in http://www.keckfutures.org/conferences/complex-systems.grants.html  "YING-CHENG LAI, Arizona State University, Tempe ; FREDERICK I. MOXLEY, Network Science Center, United States Military Academy; JUAN M. OCAMPO, Trajectory Asset Management, New York City; MICHAEL J. NORTH, University of Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory


 * Keep. checked into this and believe that the previous assessment trivializes the recognition that has been bestowed on Professor Moxley and is erroneous to boot. The exceptional civilian service medal is the Office of the Secretary of Defense's highest award as indicated by the source website. To indicate that it may given out more than once is immaterial, as several significant honors may be bestowed on someone more than once. Based on the National Academies Keck Futures Initiative website, to participate alone is a competitive and selective process in which a limited amount of scientists - approximately one hundred annually - are allowed to partake.  Furthermore, grants are awarded based on merit, and not just given out according to their website.  Also, to negate a peer reviewed best paper published by a recognized professional society as recently as 2010 is a bit harsh.  Watched the documentary, and it indicates the establishment of network science as an undergraduate field at the U.S. Military Academy which is by no means a meager accomplishment.  For a government scientist who is not a professional academician and thus would not publish as often, his accomplishments are not only current, but highly commendable  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbethe (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)  — Hbethe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: I struck two repeat !votes by and . Limit 1 !vote per customer please. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Taking some words from his most-cited article (5!) one can easily see that there are articles on the same subject that get cited 132, 80, 48, 37, ... times. Claims that his field is secretive are ludicrous. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to provide some perspective to the arguments given by the colleague above. 1) The recognition given by the medal was not trivialized by the comment, the fact that can be given many times indicates that is not the *TOP* recognition. SInce we are trying to figure out how notable is that person, the comment is appropriate.  2) Concerning the grant the editor fail to offer proofs that "to participate alone is a competitive and selective process". It is known that, the grants NIH and NSF as well as the contracts of the  Department of Defense are competitive in the sense that there is a well established annual competition for grants in which each one interested can apply. They are selective because only a few percent of the applications are funded. So having a grant from any of these agencies means a clear recognition. In this case, as I said before, a steering committee was appointed (Dr. Stanley was the chair according to the web site) who discretionally invited whoever he found suitable.  In this case more than 90 % of the people that was invited to the conference (according to the web site) got the grant, as happen usually when small grants (in this case 50k) are distributed. In conclusion, the process was not competitive nor selective.  3)To publish one (1) paper is not proof of anything, even a Post Doct fellow will not get a job based on publishing a paper, what count is the number of citations (larger than hundreds) as argued by the ed. Abdcutive. Thus, the comment that  "negate a peer reviewed best paper published by a recognized professional society as recently as 2010 is a bit harsh" is  invalid.  FInally, again, the issue here is: how notable is this person? In my opinion the best proof is that this person is as notable as in the occasion of the last AfD. Any notable living person  will have a lot to show in such period of time, instead in this case the discussion is  whether publishing one paper is enough. Twoself (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Comment - You really need to get your facts straight.  For instance the medal that was awarded to Dr. Moxley is the highest award bestowed to civilians by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, period.  When viewing a recipient’s listing of the award at the following website,      http://www.osi.andrews.af.mil/library/biographies/bio_print.asp?bioID=10641&page=1 one can see that it is listed by order of significance (i.e., top to bottom).  Another example is provided at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46538 where the same award was presented to Charlie Daniels for his public service to the Department of Defense. It is not an award that is handed out frivolously and yes, it may be presented more than once (e.g., the Medal of Honor has been awarded to the same recipient more than once; Nobel Prize, more than once, etc).  So, to receive an honor more than once does not indicate a lack of prestige.  It is well known that the government awards grants on a competitive basis.  This was never the point of discussion or issue at hand.  The issue at hand focused on the relevance and notability of Dr. Moxley’s designation as a NAKFI selectee, grant recipient, and alumni.  From their website the following is provided: ‘NAKFI’s objectives include enhancing the climate for conducting interdisciplinary research, and breaking down related institutional and systemic barriers. We work toward these objectives by harnessing the intellectual horsepower of approximately 150 of the brightest minds from diverse backgrounds who apply to attend our annual “think-tank” style conference to contemplate the real world challenges of our day; and by awarding seed grants – on a competitive basis – to conference participants to enable further pursuit of bold, new ideas and inspirations generated at the conference.’  Didn’t see the 90 percent award ratio you mentioned.  Based on the total number of attendees alone, the awardees amounted to less than 50 percent (to include Nobel laureates) of the participants who attended.  So again, your comment is not based on fact.  In addition, as news of Alumni’s progress in the form of written research reports is posted for press release by the National Academies on an ongoing basis, one may deduce that these efforts are still works in progress.   As indicated on the webpage in question, Dr. Moxley is presently a government scientist and senior advisor and is not an academic by profession.  In this capacity, he would not have the time, nor would he be expected to write papers on a regular basis. It can also be surmised from the webpage that the position he held at the U.S. Military Academy was not a permanent one.  Putting Dr Moxley in a box alongside those in academia who are expected to produce papers on a regular basis actually does him a disservice. In all reality, he is a practitioner who holds two doctorates in two totally different and distinct fields, has served in academia, made notable contributions, and returned to his position as an active professional.  His accomplishments to date have benefited both realms of government and academia, and his efforts are ongoing.   Nothing more need be said except that you should consider reading the comments as presented before providing a perspective that may be interpreted as one-sided.  Regardless of the position taken, twisting the facts to suit one’s own objectives does not bode well for open discussion or debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbethe (talk • contribs) 1 April 2011
 * 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.