Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCS.com

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 merge to Foot Locker. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCS.com

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

I tagged this when it was first created but little has been done since to add anything in the way of sources. I couldn't find any then and I can't find any now. I can't see how the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 13:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered about the notability of this group. They do sponsor the number of quite well known riders so I think a case could be made for notability. --Salix (talk): 14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd considered that, but surely they don't WP:INHERIT notability from their "team members"? Anyone can sponsor a skateboarder, or a team of them (most small companies and local skate shops do). Surely that doesn't make them notable? Stalwart111 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Foot Locker A Google News search for "ccs.com" turns up only one relevant result (not counting the ccs.com site itself), a story [1] which mentions that the brand is owned by Foot Locker. The whois record for ccs.com shows Foot Locker as the owner. —rybec 00:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection to that. Stalwart111 02:27, 5 August 2013 (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.