Deletion of David Bret

Comment: Don't see anything offhand that makes him pass GNG or . There is some suggestion that one of his works may meet GNG. Which work? The article could be renamed to that work and all of the unrelated content can be clipped
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: as per {{U|Beyond My Ken|BMK}}, {{U|DGG}} and {{U|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} above. I am engaged in adding sources. At the moment there are nine citations, all to significant reliable publications. I expect there to be several more before I am done. It was claimed above that Bret did not meet . Well point 3 of that guideline says: "{{xt|The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.}}" I contend that Bret clearly meets the "significant collective body of work" standard, and that reviews of individual works help to establish this. Therefore I reject {{U|Ferret}}'s contention that reviews of Bret's books are irrelevant, and I feel that the '''Delete''' !votes based on that contention above should be given low weight as not correctly based on policy. A review of a single book might say nothing about the notability of an author. But when that author writes book after book, and those books are consistently '''taken notice of''' by being reviewed in major publications such as Kirkus, The Telegraph, The Independent, Publisher's Weekly, and the New York Times, that shows that the body of work and therefore the author is notable, even if no other coverage is available
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)