Talk:Stonewielder

Notability
ISFDb lists only a single review for this and I am not seeing anything else. Pinging User:Cunard, User:Daranios, before an AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Here are some sources about Stonewielder:  The review notes: "The canvas is vast, the cast vaster (although there could be more backstory here for newcomers), and the whole Malazan Empire saga is rapidly approaching the size and popularity of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. Proceed accordingly."  The review was originally published here on Blogcritics which has this author biography: "Richard Marcus is the author of the What Will Happen In Eragon IV? and The Unofficial Heroes Of Olympus Companion, both published by Ulysses Press. He has had his work published in print and online all over the world including the German edition of Rolling Stone Magazine and www.Qantara.de. The source is of unknown reliability. The review notes: "Stonewielder is not an easy read by any stretch of the imagination, but it is an immensely satisfying one. For not only is it as exciting an adventure story filled with great battle scenes and descriptions of combat unlike any you'll read elsewhere, the sea battles alone make it worth reading."  There is discussion about Theaker's Quarterly Fiction in this entry at The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cunard Thanks. What's your take on reliability of Blogcritics? Theaker's Quarterly Fiction is a zine, suprisingly, does not have an article (possibly notable). And a capsule review. Feel like we are dreding the barrel here, little better than with Talk:Orb_Sceptre_Throne. Redirect or AfD or 3O? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , the reliability of Blogcritics was talked about in these discussions: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 186, and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 25. Some quotes:"According to their own website, they'll let just about anyone with a blog write for them, so of course they can't be considered reliable. See also our article about Blogcritics; apparently, they've won several awards and have become a popular site, but are ultimately a collection of obscure, self-published web authors.""This one is a problem. we have many hundreds of links to blogcritics.org, some of which may be valid (if the author is a recognised authority) but many are not, there being no apparent bar to registration and publication." I would treat Blogcritics as a self-published source that falls under Verifiability, which says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." As the author of the piece has published in "the German edition of Rolling Stone Magazine and www.Qantara.de", he may meet that requirement. However, I agree that notability is very marginal here given that there is one reliable source (Booklist), one self-published source (Blogcritics), and a magazine of unclear reliability (Theaker's Quarterly Fiction). I would recommend a redirect to Malazan Book of the Fallen per Deletion policy given the weak evidence of notability. Cunard (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)