Oppose I dare oppose, sorry. VI rules for building scopes say about churches: "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. [...] there should be a good reason, like [...] being really famous, being architecturally exceptional" and this could be applied to town halls too, IMO. In the French WP article about that arrondissement, there is nothing about the building itself; we don't even know the architect; it doesn't seem to be classified among the French "Monuments Historiques" (that may help to assume that a building deserves a scope). Another issue is that the perspective adjustments seem to have distorted the proportions of the building (comparing the height of the pinnacle to the ground floor, for instance), so can we consider that criterion 3 is really fulfilled? --Myrabella (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've added a little text about the building on French WP. About perspective correction, the building is at least twice as high as houses around, and this corner is less than 90deg, which makes distortion seem more important than it is. --Coyau (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides, all "monuments historiques" do not deserve a scope (see this list), and all interesing building are not necessarily classified among French monument historiques (or has the Blaye citadel become suddenly a possible scope for Commons when French Ministry for Culture has listed it on ?). This label is sometimes given on political bases, which have quite nothing to do with the interest of the building. --Coyau (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, the "monuments historiques" label doesn't guarantee that a building is worth of interest; I simply said that it may help and give a clue. Thanks to your complement in the French WP article, we get the truly noticeable feature of that building: it was the most expensive of all the Parisian town halls. I still think that the top of the building is somewhat oversized in the nominated image, but there's no better choice in the Commons category => oppose removed. --Myrabella (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
