Deletion of Areca (company)

Comment: The http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=31138923 Bloomberg source is noncontributory to notability because it does not provide an |in-depth analysis of the subject. The subject appears to have sparse to no ''deep'' coverage from independent reliable sources to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORP)

Comment: I added a reference from a |reliable source, needs work, but seems notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: mdash; product reviews aren't significant coverage () of a company; it also appears to fail , too. In fact, given the wording of the last-minute sources cited by Cunard, these reek of paid-to-review in the first place, and, in fact, TweakTown is listed as a blog by Google news. Speaking of Google News, check out the https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=ubuntu&hs=9q4&channel=fs&biw=1600&bih=747&tbm=nws&q=%22Areca+Technology+corporation%22&oq=%22Areca+Technology+corporation%22&gs_l=serp.3...63347.63555.0.63960.2.2.0.0.0.0.103.103.0j1.1.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.serp..2.0.0.skCvswCVO3A amazing similarity in wording between the hit for Areca's home page and the wording of the review from TweakTown. Also, ''even if'' it were a valid source&mdash;it's clearly not&mdash;a review related to a product release in no way demonstrates substantial coverage / significance of the ''company'' as required by either  or , for this exact reason:  it's easy to pay a handful of people to review your product, but it's much more difficult to garner significant awards and critical acclaim and/or ridicule across numerous independent sources for a company's long-term significance (and thus encyclopedic notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP||WP:CORP||WP:GNG)