Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Fawcett
I can't find any mention of the volume of a writer's output lending anything to credibility via . For the record, I think the argument of "Author X has written and published ''so'' many books, he is by default notable" a weak argument. Moreover, the issue isn't that a review in the NY Times Book Review is "meatier" than one in Kirkus, it's that the NY Times Book Review is a stronger source. That it has a better reputation. Been around longer. Has earned a better reputation. Has a better readership. That kind of stuff. Also, another thing for the record, it's excessive to list ''every'' book an author has published, especially if they are prolific, because, generally, there's a risk of veering into , and lastly, reading some comments on the AfD lately, I have to say, (borrowed from elsewhere), ''words are like leaves and where they most abound, much fruit of sense is rarely found
— User:Jimsteele9999, 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AUTHOR||WP:RESUME (Wikipedia:Notability)