Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia Oy


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Lamia Oy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of importance nor it has RS included. BiH (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * BiH, would you mind explaining how the Finnish-language sources are not reliable sources? I don't read Finnish, but I assume that you do. The article has several Finnish-language references, including an article in Helsingin Sanomat a major Finnish newspaper. --Hegvald (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm Finnish, and the references seem to check out, albeit the quotes are somewhat poorly worded and skewed. I'll try to fix them when I have the time. Anyway, I don't see any reason for this article's deletion. --Aapokiiso (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Normally, I'd go along with the nom, but in this case, the sources seem to show that this start-up has gotten significant media attention. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The nominator has not given any real rationale for deletion (handwaving references to policies are useless on their own) and has ignored a request for clarification. As I see it, it is pointless to keep this nomination open, as there is no basis for a discussion here. --Hegvald (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.