Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest multi-use buildings in the world


 * 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 result was   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest multi-use buildings in the world

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list seems to be both overly specific and overly vague at the same time. What qualifies as a separate use for a building? Better question, why do we need a separate list for this? Poorly referenced besides, I'd recommend this be deleted, or failing that, merged into the standard tallest buildings list. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not have a list for this type of building? It just needs to be populated. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of tallest buildings in the world. I'm not sure what "multi-use" is supposed to mean, and the article doesn't explain that term at all.  That phrase is subjective and I suspect all of the world's largest buildings are used for many different purposes.  Them  From  Space  02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Multi-use means a combination, such as a skyscraper that houses offices, hotels, apartments, etc. in one building. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still have trouble with this term. Most skyscrapers are not comprised of just offices.  Does a food court count as a multi-purpose building?  A shopping mall? Unless there is a clear definition for what constitutes "multi-use", and it is verifiable that this definition is used by either architects or the media at large, then I'd have issues keeping this article.  Them  From  Space  03:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This list contains the "tallest" multi-use buildings in the world. Most skyscrapers only have one use. Some have more than one use. I don't really understand what the big issue is here. Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Redirect doesn't seem worthwhile, as the title isn't likely to be used. If the title were to be used as a link, "multi-use" would have to be defined there, anyway. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This would work better as an article about multi-use skyscrapers in general, rather than a list of which of the world's tallest buildings combine offices and residences. My suggestion would be to put the emphasis on the "multi-use" aspect of such structures, rather than simply repeating the info about year of construction, height in meters, etc.  At the moment, this really is (as the nominator says) overly specific and overly vague at the same time.  I do think that there's a topic that would be notable.  Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacking any evidence that this is a classification that is commonly used among architects etc, I can't see this being more than a list that has questionable criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be okay with redirecting this article, but i still think that it should be kept. Ryanbstevens (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.