Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red T

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Red T}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Red T}})

A search for sources yielded nothing in depth to meet WP:ORG. The 2 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. All I could find were interviews, primary sources and passing mentions. I also looked at whether its founder might be notable as a possible move/redirect option, but I don't think there's enough about her to pass WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete -- (moderate) -- 8 years is more than enough time for an article to be expanded. It's clear from a quick search that this entity does not meet notability standards. The sources there are -- apart from the two primary sources cited currently -- appear to be enetering into Woozle territory, with organizations vouching for one another. Certainly no SIGCOV. MWFwiki (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.