This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
Thanks for taking the time to review Draft:Bay Alarm. I'm reaching out in response to your comment regarding the draft's notability and sourcing. After reviewing Wikipedia:Newspapers.com I realized I linked to the articles themselves rather than publicly accessible clippings. I have since updated the links for references 6, 7, 8, 24, and 25. My apologies there.
With regard to all sources besides 5, 7, and 25 not contributing to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), I was asked by a previous reviewer to identify just three sources I believed were eligible. In the case of the Forbes article, I absolutely understand product reviews are not ideal NCORP sources. Reference 4 is perhaps a stronger alternative as multiple products are mentioned in the review. Otherwise, I would greatly appreciate consideration of newspaper references such as 7, 8, 14, 24, and 25. As the organization was founded in 1946, many of its notable press mentions occurred in print.
Hi, thank you for the clarification and taking the time to properly source the article. I agree that 4 reads as a stronger alternative, though it seems to cover computer use by the company a bit more than the company itself. The other ones you mentioned do seem like they could potentially pass. Personally my main concern with virtually all of these sources is now the degree to which they are independent (and the interview content in most of them), but I am not experienced enough in NCORP to properly judge, so I'll leave it to another reviewer. You may resubmit if you wish. Fermiboson (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fermiboson @Greatjonesguy While I can't say that I'm very experienced in NCORP; the I reviewed the refs highlighted above (newspapers.com links) and they appear to be coverage that's across years and by staff writers with significant coverage about the company; which seemed alright to me. I've accepted it for now. I believe any stronger objections, if any, would be appropriate to resolve through AfD. Hope this makes sense! WeWake (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can’t access the two newspapers.com sources but 24 does not give me confidence in its independence; the Forbes review is also too weak considering its length, review of a single product, and the fact that reviews are not the ideal NCORP source anyways. All the rest of the sources are, as the submitter acknowledges, not contributing to NCORP. As such it’s difficult for me to be confident in the notability. The onus is, of course, on you to show us that this is notable. Fermiboson (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Resubmitted on behalf of Greatjonesguy. They have made improvements per our discussion on on my talk page and they state sources 5, 7, and 25 meet NCORP. I have not reviewed the sources so have no opinion either way. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Contains references with "source=chatgpt.com" in the URL. I have made no judgement on the rest of the draft content, but since ChatGPT has been used in the creation of this draft you must read WP:LLM and carefully review all the content of the draft to check for hallucinations, unsubstantiated text, non-existent references. If you are sure that no ChatGPT artefacts remain, you can re-submit this draft for review. qcne(talk)20:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)