Talk:Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors

Tags

While I am usually opposed to most deletion discussions, I can't really see how this article has any semblance of notability. A Google News search for this organization resulted in no results at all. (And a related search simply for GI Rights Hotline returned one arguably-news result.) For an organization that's been around since 1948, I would expect more (a lot more). Further, the article itself is minimal, unreferenced. I just don't see how this is fixable even, and considering referenced articles are routinely deleted, this one seems a gimme at this point. Unless someone else has any great ideas for expanding and referencing this page, I don't see how it can be expected to stick around long. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Limiting your search to Google news doesn't make much sense to me because the organization has been around for 60 years and could have a long history that a news search renders invisible. Indeed, a Google search turned up over 40,000 results, which seems pretty notable to me. Clearly, CCCO "has received significant coverage" in "sources that are independent of the subject." Granted, I think most of the results are simply listing CCCO as a resource, which might not be significant enough coverage, but I think that does attest to the notability of the organization that so many other groups look to them. I don't really know how reliable these sources are, but I was able to find old news, specifically dealing with CCCO from Democracy Now, OneWorld, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Bay Times, the National Catholic Reporter, KGO (abc7 in SF), and the Sonoma County Free Press as well as this article on a blog with no source. I think this article needs a lot of work, but I don't think it fails the notability test.--Irn (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is every indication that this organization is defunct and only of historical interest. The web site is a single page indicating the office is closed and the one outlink from that page is also dead. Further, there are no reliable links in the article (in fact, no links at all) supporting any aspect of the article, even from the (defunct) organization itself. The article should be deleted.96.35.161.10 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Still needing more references?

This article was tagged in 2016 with a needing more references tag. I added some additional citations but certainly see where some additional citations would be helpful, so I'm not removing the tag myself at this time. But I would appreciate input from others on this? --Jmbranum (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bare in-line

Corrected last bare in-line URL citation, and removed flag. Ok,@User:BrownHairedGirl? PDGPA (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)