Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asgaard (PMC)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asgaard (PMC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, misrepresented sources, almost incomprehensibly bad translation from German ("main field weaver"? I assume that's supposed to be Hauptfeldwebel). Practically every sentence either could do with a {{citation needed}} tag, or they misrepresent the lone cited source (no, Freitag doesn't say they had 100 employees in 2010). If the company is notable, which is not shown, it would be easier to rewrite the page from scratch than to salvage this version. Huon (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company (if it really is that...). Trillfendi (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the closest company I could find using the German Trade Register (link, mirror) is ASGAARD German Security Guards - Consulting GmbH, hardly a "mercenary" organisation, and it's based in Hamm, not Münster. Source searches in English and German turn up nothing about a mercenary group, and the sources for the aforementioned company (assuming this is a very bad translation) don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH anyway. SITH (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that it satisfies WP:ORG as a notable company. Edison (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A7. Whilst Asgaard GSG [1] does indeed appear to be what might be described as a private military company, the article, at this awkward title, does not make it clear why it is notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:03, 28 February 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.