Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reolink Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reolink

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reolink

[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)

Doesn't appear to meet notability under WP:COMPANY. Sources cited don't look like WP:SIGCOV. Muzilon (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it feels surprising how little coverage there seems to be from a quick search given that they seem to be a relatively major company in the market. But I think I'm likely to agree here, even if I'd like to take the time to dig a little more. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really couldn't find anything even close suitable at all on the company itself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 2 November 2023 (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.