Talk:List of books related to Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this article appropriate?[edit]

This is much better than sticking a list on Buddhism, though I wonder if it is appropriate as an article in an encyclopedia? (20040302 07:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC))

There are already many, many lists of books on Wikipedia. That's not to say it's a good idea, but it definitely has a degree of acceptability. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:28, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too Kukku - it could be a good list here too. (20040302 08:07, 22 May 2004 (UTC))
But does it make any sense? There are already hundreds of titles just on Tibetan Buddhism, would it not make more sense to list Buddhist publishers? rudy 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is silly - there are whole libraries dedicated to Buddhism, what criteria are we using for inclusion? 02:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. There are no criteria for choosing books, and thus it can easily be subtly manipulated to promote one variation over another, or one publisher over another, etc. Also, as noted above, there are thousands and thousands of books on Buddhism; there are thousands of original texts in the Buddhist scripture. If this were a small topic, or highly specialized, such a list might be appropriate, since it would point a curious reader to further material; however, the breadth of Buddhism is such that any list must be meaningless. There isn't even a section on Theravada Buddhism, one of the two major branches worldwide. I propose deletion for this page, precedence or not. It does not further the encyclopedia, the topic, or the community. Glacialfury (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and proposed deletion. I can't imagine an inclusion criteria that would make this encyclopedic and maintainable. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This was previously proposed for deletion in 2008 by Pathawi and deprodded by DGG. It can't go back for another PROD, so I will deprod. If there are concerns about suitability of the page or notability, this could be taken to AfD. I'll note that there are criteria for maintaining lists at WP. WP:LISTN says that a list of items is notable if the list itself is well defined, limited, and notable. MOS:LIST says that List-based articles may consist of entries that themselves have WP articles. Which route to go depends on the context and editor consensus. Looking at a list similar to this one, List of books about Jesus, most entries have either the book or the author as WP articles. There is further advice about lists of books at MOS:WORKS --Mark viking (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)