Oppose Please take a look at Commons:Valued image scope: Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope. Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional... IMHO a reason for nomination should be given. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the rules are small-minded or not, but they are the rules, and they are precise enough in this specific case. You may disagree with the rules, then please feel free to ask for a change (and a vote) in the appropriate page, fortunately here it is a wiki. If not, please let's follow the current rules.--Jebulon (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any opinion, I speak about rules I'm not responsible of, which are pure facts. Writing that they ar small-minded IS an opinion. this church has an encyclopedic relevance IS an opinion, and needs to be proved.--Jebulon (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are not so-called, they are rules we have to follow, or to change by consensus. Please participate to the debate mentioned below.--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just ask for an explanation about the notability of this church. And I strongly disagree with the vote above. You are trying to make a point with your vote, Claritas, and it is not the way to do IMO. the rules are clear enough, please discuss for a change if needed (but I agree with your opinion)-Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
