This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was move. Vassyana (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Lake Point Tower (Chicago) → Lake Point Tower — This page was recently moved from Lake Point Tower to Lake Point Tower (Chicago) because a new stub article, Lake Point Tower (Dubai), was created. However, this building is much more notable and much more well known than the one in Dubai (see a Google search), so this should be located at "Lake Point Tower", with a dab link to the Dubai building; I have already been WP:BOLD and redirected "Lake Point Tower" to here from a dab page. —Rai-me 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose We are considering two buildings here. The greatest claim to fame of this one appears to be that it 24th highest in Chicago; hardly worldshaking primary usage. That Google finds more hits for the older building, and the one in the United States, is neither surprising nor significant. See WP:Search engines. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This building's claim to fame is certainly not only its height (although it was the highest apartment tower in the world at its construction); it is its very prominent lakefront location, age (and the fact that it was the the first all-electric high rise residential building in the world and was one of the first buildings to be constructed with the "Park in the City" concept) and distinct architecture. The building has been featured in several skyscraper works, most recently in Skyscrapers by Antonino Terranova. Its claim to fame goes far beyond its height. Rai-me 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support; the contrast in notability is based on architectural significance, not height. Feel free to discount this opinion, though, as I don't have time to sniff out links. Dekimasuよ! 02:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. Hits on Google Books (most appropriate search for an architectural subject?) for "Lake Point Tower" and most of them seem to be for the Chicago apartments. Iamaleopard (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Google search (and most especially google book searches) are a bad way of comparing a 30 year old building against one that is not even finished yet. This is not the Watergate or the Sears Tower. The claims above, "all-electric high rise" and "Park in the City" are really very unsubstantial. SFC9394 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the 30-year old building is more notable at this time than the building in Dubai. If this changes, then a dab page should certainly be created, but at present there is no way to know this. And I would certainly disagree that the fact that it was the first skyscraper to use electricity throughout, an impressive engineering feat at the time, is "unsubstantial". A topic doesn't have to be as important as the Sears Tower for one article to be more notable than another. Rai-me 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
How does one determine that a future building will not be as notable, or even more notable, then an existing building. So if this was already dabbed, is that really bad? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability is assessed in the present; at present, the Chicago building is more notable than the Dubai building. Rai-me 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the Dubai building will ever attract as much notability as this building does. And chances are the article about the Dubai building will stay a stub, while this article is long enough to allow "Lake Point Tower" to go directly to this page. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.