Talk:Burlington City Council

from VfD:

no info beyond obvious from title, not yet a speedy criteria Michael Ward 04:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like tautological, speedy material to me. What value do you see in it? -- Hadal 04:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It has no value. This criteria is currently listed in the speedy expansion vote.  Surpringly (to me) it's not clear that this will gain consensus as a speedy criterion. Perhaps you would like to vote for it? Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal II (Amount of content II) Michael Ward 08:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Would that User:139.168.222.19 had not tried to be helpful! The original page was a clear speedy delete candidate.  The rewritten page doesn't say which Burlington, of course.  In any case: Any information about a Burlington city council will be specific to a single Burlington, and thus almost certainly belongs in one of the numerous individual Burlington articles. Delete . Uncle G 05:48, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
 * After Earl Andrew's changes: Weak keep, with reservations about how quickly the material will date, and strong move. "Burlington City Council" is the name of the council of any city named "Burlington". Uncle G 03:05, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


 * In light of User:Earl Andrew's revisions, I vote to keep (though it might be adviseable to change the page name to "City Council of Burlington, Ontario", to prevent confusion with Burlington, Vermont). CJCurrie 21:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as I have expanded the article to include what should be on it. Earl Andrew 21:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, local city councils are not inherently encyclopedic. Wyss 01:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Burlington, VT politics are pretty interesting, this ought to have potential. And I'm saying this from the opposite side of the US. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Except that this isn't about the Burlington, Vermont city council but about the Burlington, Ontario city council. My move point is made, I think. Uncle G 03:05, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete. First, the title is ambiguous. By itself, that would be a move--but the article on Burlington, Ontario is pretty tiny. There's easily quite a bit of room for the short list of city councillors there. If the city's article grows to be cumbersome, or if something noteworthy happens with its council, then it might be worthwhile to create a Burlington, Ontario city council page. --TenOfAllTrades 03:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems a sensible approach. CJCurrie 22:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Yuckfoo 04:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Burlington City Council (Ontario) (so the main part of the title shares standard form with other Canadian city council articles). Samaritan 06:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Burlington, Ontario and delete - Skysmith 10:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete. As above. Carrp 16:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep but needs more information about the council itself Xtra 12:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but a move is a good idea. - SimonP 15:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (It doesn't need to be moved because there is no current entry for the Burlington, Vermont city council&mdash;though it will require a disambiguation if it's kept in its current space), as mentioned above. Burlington City Council isn't as notable as, say, Toronto City Council or Hamilton City Council but it exists and is notable enough. The city of Burlington, Ontario is also notable enough (I am speaking as someone who worked in Burlington for a time). --Deathphoenix 17:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Burlington, Ontario is a short article and there is nothing in this that requires it be a separate article. Merge and Delete. I might add that is a really ugly template and doesn't seem useful enough to justify its existence. older &ne; wiser 18:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Move to distinguish from any Burlington (Vermont) City Council. Neutralitytalk 04:25, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. zoney &#09827; talk 14:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local city councils are not inherently encyclopedic. Gamaliel 13:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Spinboy 05:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would vote against creating an article for every individual councillor in Burlington, unless one or more somehow became notable outside the city, but I see little harm in an article that just lists them, especially since some other Canadian cities of similar size already have these types of articles, and more are redlinked on the template. I wouldn't know where to draw the distinction between cities that are sufficiently notable to have a straight unwikied list of their incumbent city council and cities that aren't. Move, but keep. Bearcat 02:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:Burlington logo.gif
Image:Burlington logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Burlington logo.svg
The image Image:Burlington logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)