Deletion of Michael Taillard

Comment: As per , 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  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.  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: per nom, failing . This is one of the many articles that was made without having enough knowledge about reliable sources. Some sources like https://books.google.com/books?id=QU5rAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Economics+and+Modern+Warfare:+The+Invisible+Fist+of+the+Market.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikm9i_mt7XAhVLMo8KHTOdBS8Q6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=Economics%20and%20Modern%20Warfare%3A%20The%20Invisible%20Fist%20of%20the%20Market.&f=false  Economics and Modern Warfare: The Invisible Fist of the Market are created by the subject. And number of other sourceshttp://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/forum-benzie-county-s-medical-marijuana-industry-goes-up-in/article_0ecca912-21ce-5828-a0e4-465788f94c24.html are just unreliable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Could not find enough to establish notability under . Does not seem to pass  either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)

Comment: I agree with David Eppstein's assessment that we don't have the evidence for  or . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:PROF)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPROF)

Comment: 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  or , and without evidence we can't keep the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR)