Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols


 * 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 Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ Star action  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOKS; search for sources revealed none to back up notability.

First AfD so if I'm not doing something I'm supposed to please let me know. Star action ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notability (books) says: "A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Sources   The review notes: "What makes the book so good is the comparative nature of the explanations (because many symbols mean different things in different cultures) which encourages you to look for other links which then takes you on to a different symbol. Soon you're a long way from where you started. Intriguing, informative and thoroughly enjoyable."  The article notes: "And, when the frog croaks, it is claiming divine protection for all living creatures. Gone over the edge? No, I've been reading a dictionary of symbols. If you want to know the significance of everything from an abyss to the zodiac, it's in here."  The article notes: "I think I would call this paperback "fat" rather than "mammoth", but "The Fat Dictionary of Symbols" would not do, and it is actually part of a fairly mammoth series that includes The Mammoth Book of Zombies and The Mammoth Book of Killer Women. It was first published in Belgium in 1989, and contains hundreds of entries on entities of symbolic significance, from "Abyss" to "Zodiac". In her introduction Nadia Julien writes that she has drawn on ..."  This entry verifies that Libraries Unlimited's American Reference Books Annual reviewed this book. <li> The book notes: "This exceptional source is for those seeking an explanation of signs and symbols found in the majority of works about parapsychology and the occult. Brief entries can be found on the meaning of specific symbols as they are used by both religious and ethnic groups. Illustrations, although in black-and-white, are beneficial."</li> <li> I don't have access to this review. The Wikipedia article says: "Tim Smith reviewed The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols for Arcane magazine, rating it a 3 out of 10 overall. Smith comments that 'Definitions such as: 'There is a tradition that says that swallows receive the souls of dead kings', or: 'Footwear is an indispensable item of dress in temperate regions', further undermine this as a reference work. That said, it could make a decent enough bog-read if only so you can fill in the gaps yourself.'"</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Mammoth Dictionary of Symbols to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep per sources found by Cunard. BOZ (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Cunard's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.