Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treyd

Treyd

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Declined at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace regardless, fails WP:NCORP and is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Ireland, and Sweden. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. How is it blatant advertising when I have only included information presented in the different sources? Additionally, all the information provided is cited and written in a neutral language? Cece GFI (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"provides working capital solutions to product-based businesses" followed by a list of routine funding rounds. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the description of the company's services, which can be verified. So the issue is how it is worded or what exactly?

How are funding rounds advertisement, yet it is describing the company's history? Once again, the information on the company's funding is published by multiple sources.

Multiple Wikipedia pages on companies, mention funding rounds. How does that make it advertising? Cece GFI (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need articles about the company, not just funding rounds. Things that show what the company does, why it's gotten critical notice, new products or services. Not just "company gets money, does stuff". Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; The following is my source analysis (from the article, my WP:BEFORE did not turn up any new/significant sources). Using this revision for source labels.
Sources 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 do not provide any coverage that is both significant and independent except potentially mention of fundraising success. They do not convey notability.
Sources 5 and 6 don’t actually provide significant coverage for Treyd in any form. They do not convey notability.
Sources 2, 4, 9, and 12 all could provide notability but I am not entirely sure (other editors opinions would be greatly valued in regard to these sources). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2, ok fine... Rest aren't anything beyond funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2 is fine, the rest are about funding. I can only see articles about funding or new executives, nothing about what the company does or why it operates in the market... Source 2 is fine, but it's not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage that isn't just mention of funding rounds. What is the company actually notable for? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]