Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Business (yacht)

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 keep. Sandstein 12:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Business (yacht)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not so much an article about a yacht, but a coatrack to talk about the "Gary Hart incident", an incident involving living people which is already covered in the articles of those involved. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah, memories, memories... The deliciousness of cheeky Presidential candidate Gary Hart in a "Monkey Business Crew" t-shirt with a blonde-not-his-wife on his lap, swilling gin and tonics on the cover of the National Enquirer... I still have that cover around in my stuff somewhere... Does that make the yacht notable? Eh, maybe... Carrite (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have fairly generous standards about the notability of cruise ships, but probably not so much for purely private craft. On the other hand, here are some actual reliable sources about the boat: "Charter Yacht Has Carried Lots of Celebrities", Associated Press, May 7, 1987; "Marijuana Is Found On Yacht Hart Once Used", Philadelphia Inquirer, May 15, 1988; "'Monkey Business Yacht Goes Up For Sale", Ocala Star-Banner, January 2, 1990; a page in the travel book Oddball Florida, published by Chicago Review Press (2003). --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign. Its notability is all tied up with his self-destructive shenanigans. I'm surprised it isn't already mentioned in Hart's article. That was one well-known photo. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with redirect, of course) to Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign per Clarityfield. There is one reason, and one reason only that the yacht Monkey Business is potentially notable, and that is its role in ending the ill-fated presidential campaign of Gary Hart. But for the compromising photos of Gary Hart on Monkey Business, and the very public lies he told about such activities, Hart very well might have been the President of the United States. As it was, he was forced to drop out of the Democratic Party primaries as his support evaporated. This content is a perfect candidate for a merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found by Arxiloxos appear to push this - barely - past GNG; were this a person a BLP1E case could apply, but it isn't so it doesn't, and notability is not temporary. In 1987 the yacht became notable; therefore, per the notability guideline, it still is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: I'm not at all convinced. In each instance of coverage linked above, it is brief and it is perfectly clear the only reason the subject boat was getting any attention was because of its prior involvement with the Gary Hart scandal. Even if the subject were marginally notable as you suggest, it is best covered in the context of the 1988 Gary Hart campaign. Remember: satisfying GNG is not a guarantee of a stand-alone article, and editors may decide that a particular subject is better covered as part of a larger article. Do we really want a comprehensive article on Monkey Business which discusses its specifications, builder, ownership history, past and present uses, and advertises its present availability for charter? Is that encyclopedic? Outside of its association with Gary Hart, how is Monkey Business any different from several hundred thousand other boats registered in the state of Florida? I still think a merge (with a redirect here) is still the best option here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want a comprehensive article on Monkey Business which discusses its specifications, builder, ownership history, past and present uses, and advertises its present availability for charter? Is that encyclopedic? Aside from the last part (and IS it still around?) yes, that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to be "the repository of the sum total of human knowledge", and while we do appeal to sanity by having the GNG, once something meets the GNG, then that needs to be the end of it. Outside of its association with Gary Hart, how is Monkey Business any different from several hundred thousand other boats registered in the state of Florida? It isn't significiantly - aside from the seizure, and there should be more story there (how did it wind up returned to its owner?), but while that would be relevant if this was an article about a living person, it isn't about a living person, and therefore it isn't relevant. What is relevant is that there is enough, for whatever reason, to establish it as notable, however barely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBR, Civil forfeiture in the United States is an involved subject that is hotly contested in the U.S. federal and state courts. The fact that Monkey Business was "seized" because of the presence of a few ounces of recreational marijuana is evidence of just how out of control the U.S. forfeiture laws had become by the late 1980s and 1990s. The drug asset forfeiture laws were written to permit the government to confiscate planes, boats, and other vehicles used in narcotics trafficking, as well as the cash proceeds therefrom; there is no presumption that the government may confiscate private property that is not being used for illegal purposes. The presence of a couple ounces of pot, although illegal, was not intended to allow the seizure of 6- and 7-figure pleasure craft that were not used for smuggling. It's no surprise that the government returned Monkey Business to its owners based on the facts mentioned in the article, and that does not make the boat notable, exceptional or even particularly noteworthy. If I may quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage in reliable sources creates the presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article . . . ." In this case, the best and most appropriate home for the Monkey Business content is the 1988 election section of the Gary Hart article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos, and Dirtlawyer1's description of what encyclopedic information that are presented in reliable sources that we'd want in an article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article could be expanded like Chappaquiddick incident to the Monkey Business incident or such - of such American history is made. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG with no objection to renaming. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge, as above). - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.