Comment The scope seems very narrow to me, and probably it isn't a suitable one. We don't even know the name of the sculptor. Moreover, is this 19th century church a really great point of interest in the town? The article in English doesn't mention it among the town's most notable landmarks if I am not wrong. As the criteria say, "buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope" and, for works of art, "a scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia". --Myrabella (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in en-wiki mentions two principally site in the city, which originate from the Middle Ages. Mill Island is added subjective. Bydgoszcz expanded in the time of secession. There is no other monument in the city than from the XIX/XX century. Monument to the pictures will surely be to them. This is a copy of Christ of the cathedral in Copenhagen. It is also the central point Placu Zbawiciela (Square Savior) in city. Albertus teolog (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThanks for the explanation, but now I oppose, because I don't think that a copy of a work of art deserves a scope. Even if it was the case, for a hypothetical scope "Thorvaldsen's Christus copies", the nominated image would have some competitors (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5). The original Thorvaldsen's Christus has been often copied (told in :fr:w and :en:w for example). --Myrabella (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
