Talk:Great America PAC

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great America PAC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Donald Trump

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Great America Alliance[edit]

puffery--Wikipietime (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAA[edit]

I don't know what 'puffery' means in regards any action to be taken or not taken on the GAA section of this article.

My effort to bolster the GAA section with the name of a newly reported GAA senior advisor Andy Surabian and a reason Surabian gave for the President's popularity were removed as 'not sufficiently noteworthy - WP:NOTEVERYTHING'. It was not an earthshaking addition but in a pretty slim (puff?) section it seemed a positive.

At the GA PAC webpage today there's a 3 Jan. tweet featured: 'Great America PAC Retweeted / Great 🇺🇸 Alliance @TrumpAlliance / President Donald J. Trump ... tax ....' @TrumpAlliance is in fact the Twitter home of GAA. Other than the tweet there's no mention of the Alliance on the GA PAC website that I could find. Meanwhile the GAA website, which I'll be adding to the GA PAC page, makes no mention of any officers or advisors or anything much; including no mention of GA PAC. Perhaps GAA ought to be an article of its own but for now I'm fine with it as a section here. The Twitter feed at the GA PAC website affirms the other signs of some affiliation.

Meanwhile I more than ever favor having the name of at least the one publicly named advisor to GAA in the section. If the 'not plastic' comment is what's considered non-noteworthy I can certainly live without it; it was secondary in my original edit. I favor restoring at least the advisor Surabian's name to the GAA section. I favor restoring the whole edit but this is all open to comment and consensus-gathering here, now. Swliv (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First the Surabian bit. I don't think either his role as an advisor or his comment about Trump are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. PAC have lots of advisors, formal and informal. It's not a governance role. The guy is not notable in his own right. Regarding his comment, there's nothing special about it. There are a bazillion comments about Trump in the paper every day. Notice that the article isn't about Great America PAC at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding separate pages: Before creating a separate GAA page, make sure that the organization is notable, or else it will end up getting deleted. Personally I don't see the benefit, as te content for both entitles is pretty limited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]