In literature there is a great confusion when talking of reflective subcategories. Many authors assume in the definition repleteness. However, I will refer to "The Joy of Cats" and Emily Riehl's book, where repleteness is not assumed.
I will rely heavily on the notations of "The Joy of Cats" (see http://katmat.math.uni-bremen.de/acc/acc.pdf).
Here, the authors say that a full subcategory inclusion $L: A \to B$ reflects all limits and colimits existing in $B$, but it needs not lift, preserve, nor detect them (according to Example $13.23(3)$ and Remark $13.26$). Again, in Remark $13.26$ they call closed under the formation of limits in $B$ any full subcategory $A$ of $B$ which creates limits. Finally, in the successive Proposition $13.27$ the authors prove that a full reflective subcategory $A$ of $B$ is closed under the formation of limits in $B$ if and only if it is replete.
The implication "replete $\implies$ closed under the formation of limits in $B$" is quite convincing. In fact, using the reflection of the limit $L \in B$ we get an object and a natural source with such an object as its domain. The real problem is in the reverse implication, which the authors dismiss as something obvious. The answer by Marc Olschok on this point is now clear!
Riehl's Book - https://math.jhu.edu/~eriehl/context.pdf (page 158)
The author gives the same definition of reflective subcategory as Adamek et al. However in Proposition $4.5.15$ she says something which contradicts Adamek's assertion, namely:
If $D \to C$ is a reflective subcategory, then:
(i) The inclusion $D \to C$ creates all limits that $C$ admits;
(ii) $D$ has all colimits that $C$ admits, formed by applying the reflector to the colimit in $C$.
In addition, by Theorems 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 of Riehl, if $D$ has limits or colimits, they must be constructed in the way described in Proposition $4.5.15$: limits are preserved by the inclusion $D \to C$ and colimits of diagrams in $D$, regarded as diagrams in $C$, are preserved by $L: C \to D$.
Suppose Riehl is right. Then, according to her perspective and because of the aformentioned result, every full subcategory is closed under the formation of limits. In other terms, Proposition $13.27$ of Adamek does not make sense. Well, my question is the following: who is really right?