Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Areca (company)
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
— User:Slakr, 20:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:CORP||WP:CORP||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)