Talk:Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority

Opening comment

Vegaswiki,

If you feel that news cannot be a part of an encyclopedia...which is odd considering Wikipedia uses news articles as a form of source to inform readers...then I suggest editing the section rather than deleting it. Deleting it might suggest to others you are interested in suppressing facts.

For example controversies and criticisms sections exist on many articles and are documented and sourced by newspaper articles. There is no reason the LVCVA should be treated any differently.

On the news yesterday it said that the LVCVA executives fly first class and take trips to foriegn countries spending upwards of $20,000. Apparently since they are public employees they are violating state law on travel expenditures. There was also talk of abuse of the company credit card by employees. Need a print source though. (Kdr81 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

Yep, happens to just about every agency at some point in time so this is not unique. It also happens in public companies. So this is the norm rather then an exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A mention is fine, but using half of the article for a minor incident that is likely not encyclopedic in the long run and probably violates WP:NPOV is not OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can figure out how to keep it short and to the facts that would be great. Looks like this story might get bigger and bigger. (Kdr81 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Mr Vegas Wiki, hopefully it isn't you, but it looks like we have a vandal who will blank that section without reason...that is a vandal.(Kdr81 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

sources

I find it ironic that the section in question has more source material than the original article itself which reads more like an advertisement for the company than an encyclopedic article (Kdr81 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Here is vegaswiki's comments on my page,

"I see that you were complaining about the blanking and not supporting my position. I did not revert the blanking since I don't consider that material as encyclopedic and hence not vandalism. It is a news item. If in the end it results in some changes in how the money is spent, that that short fact would be encyclopedic. Right now is looks more like a POV attack to justify someone else getting a portion of the LVCVA tax revenue. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC) "

These comments themselves are POV. The articles themselves aren't even about someone going after the LVCVA tax revenue. It is his opinion, and only his opinion, that guides his reverting of the article and has nothing to do with source material or an encyclopedia. His comments are telling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdr81 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to refer you to the Oscar Goodman page which has a controversy section, sourced by news articles, none of them led to policy changes, let alone appologies from Mr. Goodman, yet those sections remain. I fail to see a difference here. Why can't a controversy section exist using NPOV sourced news articles to describe the events.(Kdr81 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Third opinion

Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Kdr81 (talk) 21

51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)): I added sections regarding a new controversy (misspending of tax dollars and possible law breaking) with LVCVA that just popped up in the news and used newspaper and television media for sources which some people keep deleting. (Controversy and What Happens Here Stays Here sections are the ones in question btw)

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Bradv

As there is no evidence of an active dispute here I've removed the 3O tag from the article. Brad 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)