Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 royal tour of Canada


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. The bottom line is that we have a lot of speculation here, about the long-term effect of this tour. If anyone has concerns, this can always be renominated in a year or two, but there's a fairly obvious lack of consensus in this debate. Courcelles 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 royal tour of Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Royals go on tours, that's part of the job spec. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this trip has no implications in significant changes in international relations, law, etc. and following on from the precedent at Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India, this should also be deleted. Mtking (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Running through the list of criteria at WP:EVENT: The visit is unlikely to have a lasting WP:EFFECT, since royal tours are routine. Also the lack of WP:INDEPTH coverage in the article makes it highly unencyclopedic. One paragraph in Prince William & Kate Middleton's pages will be enough to convey the notable information in this article. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 09:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The future of constitution monarchy, to some extent, rides on the success of William and Catherine. The success of William and Catherine rides on their ability to connect with the public. This is their first real chance to do so, and many consider this tour to be critical. Once the tour is over, myself and others will be able to rewrite the article, summarize, and get a real narrative going. But until the tour is over, there needs to be somewhere to start collecting the information and sources together. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the only way to resolve our difference in opinion is to wait until the tour is over. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 14:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources that the future of the constitutional monarchy is at stake? None are referenced in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, nothing's on the line as so much as politicians platforms including removing the monarchy. But public pressure is continuing to boil. Take these editorials:
 * "Young, attractive, but increasingly irrelevant", Vancouver Sun
 * "Postscript: It's time for a Canadian head of state", CTV Montreal
 * "When will Canada grow up?", The Toronto Star --  Zanimum (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The future of constitution monarchy, to some extent, rides on the success of William and Catherine. The success of William and Catherine rides on their ability to connect with the public. This is their first real chance to do so, and many consider this tour to be critical.; and yet the article makes minimal mention of this critical facet. Indeed if you could provide in-depth coverage and content within the article to demonstrate how criticial this tour supposedly is (those editorials are interesting, but only opinion pieces, I'd like to see objective reporting). Whilst I appreciate you don't have to write all this content now you do have to back up your "keep" view with decent and substantial sources --Errant (chat!) 12:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Summarise and merge into Monarchy of Canada and History of monarchy in Canada, although the notable effects of this tour will only become apparent during and after its course. Most of the current content reads like stuff from a tabloid or day planner.  Night w   09:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you, after the tour is over, the style of the article will greatly change. Once it's over, I plan to rewrite in thematic sections. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject is the focus of in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources and easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Speculation as to the "lasting effect" of the visit is, uh, speculation. As the tour, the coverage, and the creation of this article are ongoing matters at the moment, suggest revisiting this article in one month to re-evaluate. As to specific content concerns, AfD is not cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:INDEPTH as a notability, not content, policy. I'm more concerned that the sources will not allow the article to expand beyond what it is. With regards to an event like this, in-depth coverage (imo) should be on issues regarding diplomacy, international relations, etc, not nostalgia, public admiration of the couple and animal rights. But then again, that's my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to concur. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 14:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a historic event event seeing as it is Kate Middleton's first royal tour as an official part of the Royal Family. Also, once the tour commences more information will readily available. --Rvanwinkle1 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Future King of Canada brings takes his bride there on their first overseas tour. But I have to add I reviewed this for DYK Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, giving that this is the first official duty of Prince William and Kate Middleton as a married couple.Demon Hill (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * week keep First Official royal tour for the couple! (insert thousands of references here) A merger into Royal tours of Canada is not out of the question because no other tour has an article. But I can see that this being contemporary (current event) that the article will grow way beyond just a section type entry. thus meriting its own article.Moxy (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge anything useful where necessary. Diego Grez (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge any useful content to the targets already noted above. WP:NOTNEWS.  God help us if we write an article every time famous people go somewhere. Resolute 02:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree Obama's visit to India was far more notable than this. However, we should be careful in using the previous precedent as an argument here, as per OUTCOMES and other guidelines.  I would also add that the decision to delete the article on Obama's visit to India, while made after due process, was highly contentious; point being that it is a weak precedent to use for this situation.  That aside, are we going to write articles on every trip Will and Kate make?  I agree that WP:NOTNEWS is relevant here.  Delete--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obama's visit to India was, according to NDK, "a 10-day, four-nation swing through Asia that will put heavy emphasis on opening markets to American goods and creating jobs at home." Big whip. If a Republican beats Obama in a couple years time, they'll likely do a tour of India for the exact same purpose. This visit is about a commoner-turned-Royal (and a Royal-since-birth) proving that they can indeed stand up to the scrutiny leveled on an unelected official, and that they can revive interest in the monarchy and thus Canada's/UK's/... political system of constitutional monarchy. The Constitutional stability of 16 nations rests on their performance, only they can help cauterize the unrest. And I'm sure that any country would much rather avoid Constitutional questions, over being comfy with a trading partner, albeit a large and powerful one. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the significance that you're assigning to this visit is mentioned in the sources. I see no evidence that that the future of the monarchy is in any way on the line or that the two royals are in any way under close inspection (except from tabloid sources presumably) as future monarchs.  It is certainly true that the status of Queen Elizabeth (and perhaps the immediate heir Charles) as current head of state is somewhat controversial in some nations, but this trip isn't being made a focal point of that.  One of the sources you cited above said the trip is mainly significant as a warm-up for their visit to Hollywood!--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in (as an IP editor I'm aware I carry no weight on AFD decisions), while there may have been weak sourcing as of 2 July regarding notability, in the days since numerous international sources including CBC, BBC, etc have reported on the impact this trip is having on the image of the monarchy abroad, on establishing Kate as a major figure beyond simply being William's consort, and the Slave Lake visit is one of the few major visits to a disaster zone to take place during a royal tour. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep while this article may be quite light and newsy it is certainly vastly more notable, and with vastly more impact than the average secondary school, which generally are accepted to meet the notability criteria. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep First overseas visit by the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. When I first saw this article, my reaction was that it ought to receive the same Wikipedia treatment as the previous Royal tours, which don't have separate articles as far as I could tell. This tour should be added to: Royal tours of Canada and List of royal tours of Canada (21st century).  To keep a separate article will put undue weight on a current event, one which is comparatively lightweight inasmuch as the tourists are "Duke and Duchess", not "King and Queen".   PK  T (alk)  13:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not just a random Duke and Duchess, they are the King and Queen heir apparent to the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, population of over 2 billion at last count, and indeed King of Canada heir apparent. As the modern world questions the relevance of constitutional monarchies, this couple is widely considered the greatest hope of survival for this form of government, at least in the Commonwealth. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, if you check, you might find Charles ahead of William in line to the throne. William will likely become King someday, but he ain't yet.  He's not in a position to do anything historic on this trip.  PK  T (alk)  15:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Charles is heir apparent, and this justification is highly WP:POV. It isn't Wikipedia's place to advocate for (or against) the British monarchy.  Based on your explanation, this then belongs at Debate on the monarchy in Canada or a related article on the overall commonwealth.  Royals come to Canada every few years.  There is absolutely nothing special about this trip. Resolute 15:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your pop of 2 billion is incorrect. I believe you're including India and Pakistan, and perhaps others who are not subjects.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare the purpose of the current trip vs. the trip that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip made in June/July 2010, when they celebrated the centenary of the Canadian navy, opened a new terminal at the Winnipeg Airport, laid the cornerstone of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and other events. The current trip won't have events of similar historic importance - so why should it be detailed in its own article?  PK  T (alk)  15:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTNEWS. Some trips, like QEII's to Ireland are notable.  This isn't one of them. Hot Stop (c) 13:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: With respect, "William & Kate's first royal tour as a couple" is not really an argument, especially when the delete !votes have cited very specific policies. The tour is certainly worth mentioning in their respective biographical articles, at Monarchy of Canada, or added as an entry to Royal tours of Canada. However, the event is significant because of the fact that it is the first royal tour by the couple (as pointed out by the keep !votes), not because of what actually happened (or will happen) during the tour. That to me does not merit an article. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eraserhead1. Island Monkey talk the talk 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per my previous comments above. This tour is less about the sum of its parts, and more about proving Catherine's ability as future Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Canada, and Queen of 14 other nations, more about reviving interest in the Royals, and by extension the concept of Constitutional monarchy which has existed in the UK since the Glorious Revolution (1688), and I really don't think I'm being melodramatic to say the Constitutional stability of those 16 nations by stemming latent unrest with this format of government. --  Zanimum (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per User:Johnsemlak above, the sources do not discuss how the future of the monarchy is related to the tour. While I was happy to agree to disagree with you prior to 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC), your arguments since then have gone way beyond the context of the tour itself. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As Dravecky has noted, AfD is not Cleanup. Whether my take on the topic sucks isn't as relevant as whether the topic is. Wait a few weeks, and then retest the validity of the article. --  Zanimum (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you just admitted all that talk about the survival of the monarchy is irrelevant to the article's notability. Cleanup? The article is perfectly fine considering the sources cited. It's the lack of in-depth coverage in the sources that do not justify its notability. We'll just have to wait and see if that changes. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 15:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the sources do not support your rationale, then we are into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory. Resolute 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Zaminum, with respect, your last argument is way over the top. The tour isn't going to "[prove] Catherine's ability as future Queen" in the least, even if she slurps her soup and snorts when she laughs.  The tour has none of the gravity you suggest.   PK  T (alk)  17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * William will surely act as a confident to the Prime Ministers in office during his era, as has Queen Elizabeth and the Kings before her. But for Catherine? This sort of tour is the only real thing she'll ever do, officially. So indeed her ability to handle herself in public is the only thing she really needs to do. Monarchy's relevance is tied to constitution monarchy's existence. Constitution monarchy's existence is tied to my country's constitution. I don't see how her success or failure isn't tied to the continuation of our current format of democracy. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious that your argument is entirely your own personal viewpoint. This is, I would note, not a valid rationale at AfD. Resolute 19:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It was a pretty big event, definitely deserving of an article. Most media say 300-500,000 saw them in Ottawa. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most accounts seem to suggest 300K in the morning, 300K in the afternoon, but the Globe and Mail and NZ Herald say 500 K at night. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Over a million people a year attend the CNE, PNE, Calgary Stampede, etc. If size of crowds mattered, each of these would have an article for every year's festival. Resolute 19:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those festivals are annual, Royal tours of this size and hype aren't. And frankly, the Stampede is a sporting event, and as such, there should be pages about the results. Considering that sports is meticulously covered on Wikipedia--try this featured article about one cricket player's play during just one year of his career (and there's 17 articles in that series)--there really should be articles about each year of the Stampede. --  Zanimum (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD rationale. Regarding the numbers, the BBC had only 100,000.  But going with the larger numbers, how much of that is mainly because it was Canada Day in the nation's capital and lots of people would be out anyway?--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'll read my comment again, I was suggesting that each year of the stampede be a candidate for Articles for creation, it had nothing to do with AfD. As for 10,000, that's most likely the physical limit of how many people can be on the lawn of the Hill, the crowd spilled out onto the streets for blocks, basically just people seeing the event on a screen. Wikinews reported 25K in 2006. There was stats in one of the online videos I've watched, not sure which it was though. --  Zanimum (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Certainly meets WP:N. - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but review in a years time. As discussed elsewhere, this is probably WP:N as it is the Duchesses' first offical tour abroad.  In a years time, when this is no longer WP:NEWS, the future of the artcile can be reassessed and it can be merged into the relevant articles elsewhere if neccessary. Martinvl (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep Clearly notable. What is with the anti-royal family on articles like this. In fact I'd advocate a new series on royal visits from previous years and locations.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't generalize, Dr. I am a royalist; I just want this trip to be given the proper weight in the long series of Royal visits.  That having been said, I completely agree that Royal visits of previous years can and ought to be covered with articles of their own, not just the two lists that I previously named.   PK  T (alk)  13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to a relevant article per my standard approach to news articles. Coverage is minimal and largely news reports of the visit - there is little in depth analysis of merit and no historical context against which to set this (compared to, say, the Queen's visit to Ireland). Interest in the new couple of obviously going to be high in the coming months - but lets not confuse media coverage with enduring notability. Contributors to this article should, as always, consider contributin to WikiNews. --Errant (chat!) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable event. Has generated a debate in Canada about the role of the monarchy, and resulted in protests in Quebec.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yeah, it's duller than a knitting needle, the kickoff to hundreds or thousands of similarly routine events.  NOTNEWS is a policy which is always misapplied in deletion discussions, and, though this is more ambiguous than most, it is no exception.  "Enduring notability" does not mean that you say ooooh la la, that's the day the aliens came.  It means only that people make a note of the event.  In other words, the next time these people come to Canada, will news organizations say, "this is their first visit since..." or "by comparison to their first visit..."?  Answer is clearly yes.  Even the common people will be expected to know, sort of, that they were to the country previously.  That's notability.  Dull, unremarkable notability, but notability nonetheless.  And yes, the Obama India trip should have been retained as well.  Wikipedia isn't paper; there's no reason why we can't index thousands of these trips per celebrity, if people are so motivated to write the articles. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly notable and well cited article.  No reason to delete.  --Gaxtreme (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not much else to say. May the Obama article will need liking at again. Agathoclea (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A puff piece that doesn't even mention anti-monarchist protests that have met the tour in Quebec. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon? As of the last edit of July 2, there were seven occurrences of the word "protest", not including the one referring to a protest in 1964. The protests themselves happened July 2 and the day you made this comment. Editors were waiting for a bit, to see which articles would make the best sources. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. as above. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like this is a fairly significant event, as their first royal tour. Whether to have articles about Obama's trips is really not the question here. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep notability has clearly been established.  Chzz  ► 03:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not so much because it is a significant event for Canada, but because it is a significant event for the British royal family. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a significant event for Canadian culture and the royal family.Wheatsing (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Vale of Glamorgan, I doubt the people of Canada are that superficial that their opinion on their country's political system will be changed by a state-funded visit. No anti-royalism on WP, there's a page on somebody just because where sister might be Queen Consort one day.   Bevo74 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the other point be, but please note that Vale's point was incorrect, as there were seven occurrences of the word "protest" in the article, as of the day before his comment. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant event for both the Canadian and British monarchies. JonChapple Talk 08:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I almost said delete, until I reread the article and made note of this - "British news outlet ITN is filming a documentary on the tour." To me, that makes this particular trip notable in that the documentary will serve to provide it with significant coverage after the fact, which pushes it past - again, just in my opinion - the threshold of this just being a news event. The significance of this trip as the first one to a large part of the British Empire that will one day see the couple as the leaders of, in addition to my statement about the documentary, makes me offer a suggestion of keep. Striker force Talk  Review me! 11:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * British Empire? We haven't had one of those since the 1940s. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A slip of the tonuge, my goodness... the context was and is still the same. Striker force Talk  Review me! 05:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strikerforce was referring to the Commonwealth, and you know that full well. Secondarily, if you'd like to get technical, this Wikipedia actually considers the empire to have existed until 1997. And it wasn't until the 1982 Canada Act that Canada as a country didn't have to ask the motherland for help, when dealing with the Constitution. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for the time being. Whether or not this tour is truly "significant", it is certainly notable for Wikipedia purposes in the sense of receiving extensive media coverage, not just in Canada (where the event is taking place), the U.K. (where William and Catherine are from), and the U.S. (where they are going immediately afterward), but in other countries as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the article may not be significant to some people's standards, but the article is certainly creditable. It has many sources and is notable as a Wikipedia article. It has a plethora of media coverage and is a well done article. --Ltuck3 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Royal tours take place all the time, too trivial to merit own article. PatGallacher (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It could of course be the first section of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge royal tours Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Agree with above comment - merge into Royal tours conducted by Duke & Duchess of Cambridge or similar. --Who.was.phone (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's on the news in Britain most evenings, at the moment - more's the pity. Notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Per the massive array of reliable sources in the article that establish notability and per WP:SNOW. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I am surprised it has even been nominated  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A massive event. I'd also suggest that the 1919, 1939, and 1959 Royal tours should have their own articles. If you read any historical records from the period, these were defining events for the country. - SimonP (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.