|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The first tall building to be constructed without external scaffolding?
This page describes Centre Point as "the first tall building in London to be constructed [without external scaffolding]". This seems worthy of mention — if only we could pin down the meaning of "tall". This page only includes structures over a hundred metres; the threshold must be lower than that. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The illuiminated sign on the top of the building says "CENTRE POINT". Changing the article title to reflect this. The Anome 07:27 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Grade II means a little for a modern building. Not much. But more than for an older building. Its not made that clear in the listed uildings article. Justinc 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the ugliest building in London, and top of my list of buildings, worldwide, that I would most like to see burnt to the ground (with no casualties) 220.127.116.11 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Paramount Members' Club
I don't know why
everybody hates this building so much, but it's one of my favourites in london. Especially when the illuminated O breaks...18.104.22.168 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This section has no references.
I've found evidence that there was a protest at the building. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/OnlineResources/X20L/objects/record.htm?type=object&id=750291 And I've found evidence that the building inspired the name of the charity http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jun/16/charitymanagement.homelessness
However, I can't find any evidence that the protest of the building inspired the name. In fact, it seems unlikely since the charity was founded 6 years before the protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Number of floors
Vibrant Vertical Village
Really? I used to work in Centrepoint and I can safely say that a 'vibrant vertical village' is not the impression I was left with. Not very NPOV and I think most of this section is lifted straight from this Targetfollow press release.
Yes, this sort of PR guff is out of place in an encyclopaedia and achieves the opposite effect of what the company might intend with it. Have you had a chance to rewrite, Luckyaxolotl? GardenQuad (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm kind of new to Wiki, so I'm not sure how the dispute process goes, but I've rewritten the section in NPOV and got proper references for it. Not sure if I should remove the POV thing or not, perhaps someone wants to sign off on it first? Also, to be honest I don't think the new ownership thing is even worth it's own section, may be better just mentioning it in the history? Fox2023 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Centre Point in the Medusa Touch.jpg
The file File:Centre Point in the Medusa Touch.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Centre Point in the Medusa Touch.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)