Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Taillard


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Taillard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Near-certain autobiography with some sockpuppetry concerns. SCOPUS gives an h-index of 1, which is an abject fail of WP:PROF. Sources rarely reach the level of even a proper namecheck, in some cases just being lists of people who did a thing. Bluntly, this is spam. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. An academic CV with some odd highlights (he wanted to be a body piercer?), but not especially distinguished. --Calton | Talk 16:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  17:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. He's written quite a few books, including (the article says) five academic books, but although they exist they seem to have vanished into the academic void, with zero reviews. Which is very weird, for an academic book, and a sign that he isn't having much impact. Regardless, we don't have evidence for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and without evidence we can't keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Academic publishing is moving to a different platform in which publishers use subscription-based download services, such as SpringerLink. If you look at Taillard's books based on downloads, you'll see even his earliest books are still getting consistent attention.  This is a service you can use to confirm that.
 * You can also use Academia.com to note that his name has been specifically referenced in 551 papers:
 * It is also worth noting that the importance of the work he's done is attracting the attention of various podcasts, from people who find his work extremely important:
 * It is without doubt that he is a professor, as he works at Central Michigan University, and has contributed more greatly to academia than most professors through his writings.
 * BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — BullMooseRevival (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You can also use Academia.com to note that his name has been specifically referenced in 551 papers - This suggests otherwise. --Calton | Talk 06:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is not judged on downloads but on citations, which here are tiny: WP:Too soon. Does the creator of the BLP have any connection with its subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Xxanthippe 281 WorldCat entries plus 551 papers referencing BLP through Academia.edu is pretty significant, but not huge. Other editors and administrators have referred to the BLP as being right on the edge of notability.  It seems prudent to leave the page intact, since any future works can only further increase notability, rather than decrease it.  BullMooseRevival (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with David Eppstein's assessment that we don't have the evidence for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Download counts are not an indication of influence, nor should they be. Time and time again, I've been researching some obscure point and downloaded a dozen papers in the process, none of which had what I needed. There's no way to tell how many of the downloaded copies were discarded immediately after (nor how many hits were from automated scraping, etc.). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep  As per WP:AUTHOR, criteria states that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Taillard has written works that are considered revolutionary to military strategy.  This is evidenced by the books Economics and Modern Warfare (plus the coming 2nd edition), Psychology and Modern Warfare, and Analytics and Modern Warfare.  There are also citations present in the BLP that provide irrefutable evidence of being invited to speak on this matter at universities (specifically, Madonna University), and on podcasts.  Within an interview in the award winning movie Dead Man Working, as well as the books themselves, it is confirmed that he was a consultant on these same topics with US Strategic Command as the invitation of Vice Admiral Cecil Haney in 2011, and in Washington DC at the Chief of Staff of the Army's Strategic Studies Group at the invitation of Colonel Edmund Degen.  The National Writer's Series is publishing an author's profile based on these books on Dec. 01, 2017.  This all demonstrates a range of very significant influence in the field of strategic studies that range across the academic, military, and literary industries for which there has been ongoing recognition for the last 7 years.  As per Academia.edu, his works have been cited 551 times in scholarly papers, and they are read significantly more frequently than books of similar topics according to BookMetrix.  That is solid proof of WP:AUTHOR for the developments of new concepts and theories in the field of strategic studies.  If anything, the biggest violation in the Wikipedia page is that it fails to give proper emphasis to his contributions to this field of work.  Reorganizing the article a bit to focus on his contributions and work in strategic studies would help give the article a more appropriate scope.  He was working with top US military officers across the nation to develop new methods of strategy, and then wrote three books about it which are popular enough that the publisher is starting with 2nd editions, and has spoken to universities, podcasts, and authors' groups.  If that doesn't make someone notable within the field of strategic studies, nothing does - this guy is at the top of the field within a somewhat niche but very important area of expertise.  That most definitely fits the criteria for a notable author as per Wikipedia guidelines.  That is irrefutable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BullMooseRevival (talk • contribs) 06:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The publishers he has worked with includes some of the most influential names in the industry. Wiley, Springer, Macmillan are all very selective and distinguished.  I would bet each person here has heard of Corporate Finance for Dummies, themselves.  I know I have seen it at my local bookstores and library.  Nobody cites a Dummies book, but this one is a staple for college students.  If he is good enough for the biggest names in the industry and known worldwide, then that is the very definition of notability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.30.9 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)  — 97.91.30.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The mere existence of a book, or of any other scholarly publication, is not itself evidence of notability, even if the work was published by a reputable publisher. WP:PROF states, "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Moreover, any claim that a "person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept" must be supported "by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question" which establish that the new concept is indeed significant. Pointing back to the books themselves, as this article repeatedly does, is not sufficient. Moreover, these secondary sources must themselves be reliable, which rules out the vast majority of podcasts, blogs, social media posts, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP address 97.91.30.9 geolocates to Traverse City, Michigan, where Central Michigan University has facilities, and which is also the address given in Michael Taillard's Academia.edu profile and the . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And you'll find a lot of neurologists in Ann Arbor who are associated with University of Michigan, a lot of editors in New York who work for major publishers and their imprints, and a lot of computer programmers along the US West Coast. Your big revelation is that specific industries and career-types tend to cluster geographically?  Congrats, you just discovered a concept called economies of agglomeration, which has been around since at least the ancient civilizations.  Tell me, why is it that the bulk of everything you do on Wikipedia is dedicated in some way to the deletion of pages?  Why not give some thought into what would improve upon the page, instead?  BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of the confusion seems to be stemming from the way the article was written. There's far too much emphasis on points for which the person is not notable and not enough emphasis given to why the person is notable.  Let me explain.  Notability is established under WP:AUTHOR as described in previous comments.  The works fall directly under the direct criteria, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."  The work has been of consistent interest to military, university, and public audiences for 7 years, and continues to be of interest.  Strategic studies is a niche topic, but Taillard is clearly notable within it, as previously demonstrated.  In addition, as someone pointed-out, nobody actually cites a Dummies book because they offer intro material that is generally not acceptable for academic citations, but everyone has heard of Corporate Finance for Dummies because it's in universities around the world.  That being said, I would agree that the article fails to emphasize the reason for author notability.  Instead of deleting it entirely, it seems prudent to rewrite it to narrow the scope of its content.  The entire section on political views could be deleted, and the subsection on military reformation given its own section and expanded to include more details on that matter.  Discussions on being a professor should be more of a side-note than a feature, and more details offered on his role in the development of his professional field.  Early life could be deleted, although educational history might be prudent to the article.  Would you agree that this makes sense? BullMooseRevival (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note. The subject has been very productive as of late; but notability is based on recognition, which usually takes some time. The article was created too early. He could become notable in the future; in fact, this may be likely. But not yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion, we need to proactively remove examples of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And, as demonstrated by citations to BookMetrix, Worldcat, and Academia.edu, Taillard is at the forefront of literature in that field due to his contributions of entirely new theory. That is the definition of notability under a clause of WP:AUTHOR.  The fact that these contributions are sought by military and academia proves applied demand due to these books.  There is nothing too early about this - it has already reached top military brass, including an appearance to the Naval War College in Rhode Island next month.  Now, the only ones providing actual citations, referencing specific Wiki policy, or offering logic beyond "I disapprove" have been those saying keep the article.  Unless you can offer a more substantial argument, then those who want the page deleted are merely relying on a majority vote, which it has already been stated does not matter.  Can anyone offer a quality reason to delete this page other than not liking it?  As of now, all empirical evidence supports keeping it under WP:AUTHOR.  Simply disliking that fact is not grounds for deletion according to Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.30.9 (talk • contribs)  — 97.91.30.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Question for BullMooseRevival. Do you have any connection with the subject of this BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
 * We both specialized in similar fields, but we're not friends or anything. We met one time for a Congressional conference on fiscal policy reform in Washington DC which is where he told me about his work on strategic economics, and I've been following his books published by Palgrave Macmillan ever since.  Clearly I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the direction he's taking the field.  BullMooseRevival (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explanations. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
 * No problem. In light of the evidence that the subject of the LPB is purchased and read more frequently than other books in the same field, does this change your mind on the matter?  Based on your own criteria of citations, 551 may not compared to legendary names like Adam Smith, but neither is it insignificant.  The article was written very generically, and it seems like a rewrite would be the appropriate course of action, rather than deletion.  Would you agree?  BullMooseRevival (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, failing WP:PROF. This is one of the many articles that was made without having enough knowledge about reliable sources. Some sources like Economics and Modern Warfare: The Invisible Fist of the Market are created by the subject. And number of other sources are just unreliable. Excelse (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the comments of BullMooseRevival. I agree that the article needs a rewrite. I would post a 'reads like a CV' template on it. But I think the distinction between citations and downloads (one being good and useful, the other being worthless) is wrongheaded. The question is whether people are using his material, which, clearly, they are. I agree that he qualifies for Academic Person as a leader in his field. The extensive commentary showing that the Subject, in the commentator's view, doess not meet the Criterion C1, may be true, but may also be the fault of the editors of the article, who don't know about the guidelines for notability of academics, and therefore do not frame their content appropriately. But there are eight other Criteria, and also the statement " Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." Commentators may well be raising the bar far too high. Again, I think the article needs a template or two to encourage better style and better documentation, with attention to WP:NPROF. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at your page, it seems like you have a lot of experience. Would you mind very much assisting in revising the article? BullMooseRevival (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "There are eight other criteria", true. But he fails all of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is established under WP:AUTHOR. The works fall directly under 2 criteria: 1: "The person is regarded as an important figure" and 2: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." As previously noted, people are buying, reading, and requesting more of the same content because of this.  This, in fact, establishes notability under WP:NPROF under criteria 7, "7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."  Ample citations have been provided of this.  The failure in the article is that it was poorly designed and written, something which a group of experienced editors should be able to resolve quite easily.  In fact, there was even mention of templates?  That is the point, right?  To improve articles instead of spending endless days judging whether they should be deleted based upon their original form?  BullMooseRevival (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BullMooseRevival, you keep saying that "the person is regarded as important figure" is proven by people reading/buying his stuff, but this is a very weak argument. The way Wikipedia works, is that we summarize what reliable sources say. That is the epistemology of this place, and the way the dilemma of there being no named authors is resolved (authors of content are not authoritative; sources are authoritative.  If there were say a NYT profile, a WSJ profile, an Economist profile, all saying how important he is, it would be unlikely that this article would have been nominated for deletion.  This whole piece is trying to sell, sell SELL how important he is, and by trying so hard it fails to be encyclopedic.  You are fairly new here and it is clear that you don't understand this stuff yet.  What I suggest is that you agree to draftify this article, and tone it down, use more high quality secondary sources that are about him (not by him), and then put it through WP:AFC.  What do you think about that? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be totally honest, I was hoping an editor with more experience might help with editing. It sounds like you agree that rewriting the article is the best course of action.  I've asked two very experienced editors to assist in that process in lieu of taking the page down.  Once the article is less generic and really just focuses more on the significant contributions the LPB subject has made, then there shouldn't be any question.  On the page there are citations to sources which demonstrate he has been invited to speak at universities, conferences, military agencies, podcasts, and writer's groups on his specific areas of contribution, and that his books are popular enough that the publishers are now doing 2nd editions.  That definitely demonstrates "significant impact" based on "originating a significant new theory", which inherently makes him "an important figure."  Ok, for the sake of argument, you disagree with "important figure", there are still 2 other criteria which fits perfectly.  You mentioned news sources of global distribution - The Economist does profiles on people like Kofi Annan, Bloomberg does profiles on people like Donald Trump, so if you are setting the bar at "World Leaders" as your judgment of notability, you may as well delete 99% of the people on Wikipedia right now.  Instead, let's take the sensible path and fix-up the article so that it is more in-line with other people who are notable yet not so notable that they decide world affairs at the United Nations.  BullMooseRevival (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not sound to me like Jytdog thinks the article should be kept and rewritten. It sounds like he thinks the article should be taken down unless/until someone with a better understanding of how notability works on Wikipedia rewrites it based on independent reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, we are in agreement that the problem is not one of notability? That the problem is the article needs to be rewritten?  Regardless of whether you would take the article down first or not, the issue at hand is that the article was poorly designed in its original incarnation?  Are you also in agreement with this assessment of the current state of things?
 * BullMooseRevival, You have repeated yourself. I heard you the first few times you said this stuff.  Please hear me (and everybody else) when we say that we are hearing your argument and it is not a good one, here in Wikipedia.
 * This article will very likely be deleted if this discussion continues. You can save yourself and everybody else trouble if you will consent to moving this out of "mainspace" (the Wikipedia that everyone reads) and into "draft space" (that is what "draftifying" means -- unpublishing it, but keeping it as a working draft elsewhere in Wikipedia -- it would be at Draft:Michael Taillard), to remove the hard selling and if there are independent sources that establish the stuff you are saying about him, rewrite this article based on those sources.  And once it is done, submit the draft for review by independent editors (that is what happens in the "articles for creation" process), after which it would be published.  This page in anything like its current form should not be published in Wikipedia.  There is too much "selling".  Will you agree to this? Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As you said, I am relatively new. I've only made basic contributions and have learned the "code" by watching others use it.  So, when I say I cannot agree to that, I am not being argumentative, I literally mean I cannot agree because I don't really know what you're talking about.  Seriously, I've made contributions to existing pages for years with no problem, but it wasn't until attempting to make a new page that I learned just how complicated Wikipedia can be.  That's really my biggest concern with your suggestion - the page will be "draftified" and then I won't know what to do from there and the whole thing will just get lost in the shuffle.  That's the biggest reason I wanted to leave the page available while it gets worked-on, because at least then I still know what I'm doing.  Doing it your way delves into territory I'm not familiar with.  Is there some middle ground we can find in which a bit of assistance is offered to walk through this?  To be quite honest, I'd really like to see someone experienced work on the page so I can see what they're doing and learn from it and become a better editor, myself.  What do you think?  Is there somewhat we can do it your way but get some kind of assistance?   BullMooseRevival (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the page is likely to be deleted. Draftify may not be an answer, because if a draft if left for too long without being edited it may be deleted. Wikipedia does not provide a cloud storage service. The creator might do better to copy the source code onto his own computer where it can be worked on securely. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC).


 * Beg to differ. What I see so far is NO consensus. There is a disagreement as to whether a criterion has been met. And alternatives to deletion have been proposed (improving the article already posted, moving the article to Drafting). Please avoid trying to strongarm the commentators into a false appearance of consensus. --Vicedomino (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You know what? Fuck it.  I'm just going to delete the page.  I can't believe I've wasted as much time as I have even trying to contribute.  You win - I don't care enough to do this anymore.  BullMooseRevival (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you changing your vote to Delete then? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC).
 * I'm changing my vote to "Do whatever you want, just keep me out of it." I blanked the page because I don't know how to delete it outright, and I don't want my work associated with this at all, anymore.  If someone wants the article back, they can write it, themselves.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BullMooseRevival (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.