Talk:Stephen Smith (Whitewater)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those reading the PROD:

The PROD on this article was removed because an editor stated that the article was not "that bad". However, this was not the reason the PROD was put on the article. The PROD clearly stated that the article failed WP:COAT, and from my perspective, it still does, in spades. The real topic of this article is not Smith, but Whitewater, and we already have an article on this. Whitewater is this article's "bias subject". It is for that reason that it should be removed.

Take a step back and look at it again. If not for the Whitewater connection, would this guy be notable? He got a misdemeanor charge that was related to a crooked banker. That's certainly not notable. And aside from that, what is? "helped clinton"? No, the only notability here is that he was swept up in the Whitewater affair. But we already have an article on the Whitewater affair. That makes this article a coathook.

The proper place for this content is a single-para mention in the Bill Clinton pardons controversy "final day in office" section. That would not be violating COAT, would be completely on-topic, and would give it the weight it's due (ie, little).

Maury (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Reply

1) If your name is in the National news it is news.

To Quote:

"Stephen Smith. A former Clinton aide, Smith pleaded guilty in 1995 to lying about a federally backed loan he obtained from Hale." CBS News, Caught In The Whitewater Net, Washington, May 19, 199.

2) You are correct that it looks like he was not pardoned by Bill Clinton. This info came off the main Whitewater page, that I did not write and has been there wrong for a long time and needs to be changed. Thank you for noting this !!!


'Correction Times reported the pardoned by Bill Clinton ! New Ref added.

These pages are needed for the ref !

Telecine Guy 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the course of a week, thousands of people are named in the New York Times. That is not a criterion for notability. In this particular case, the person in question would not have been mentioned except for the fact that they were peripherally connected to another story. The story here is Whitewater. If not for Whitewater, this person would never have been in the national news. Therefore the proper place to mention this person is in the Whitewater article.
Let me put this in perspective. If there is a plane crash and 20 people die, those names will be listed in the national news. However, they do not deserve articles on the wikipedia. The accident does. It is the exact same issue here.
Maury (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)