Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BackOffice Associates

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 delete. Tone 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BackOffice Associates[edit]

[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)

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

All references are mere announcements, orelse PR like ref. 6, and do not meet WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a second Findsources above for the company's recent name change. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally created by a WP:SPA (via AfC, from where it was accepted by now-blocked User:Ktr101) and subsequently maintained by other WP:SPAs. Althought the article has been much edited (and was recently copied as Syniti), it has not gone beyond a list of corporate acquisitions and investments, which are regarded as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a company going about its business, but the best available item about the company appears to be the 2013 Matt Sarrel piece in Enterprise Apps Today; I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now on the grounds that the sources online don't seem to support corpdepth. I did not look behind paywalls, but did check the most obvious sources available. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2019 (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.