Talk:Bay Alarm

Hello, @Fermiboson.

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.

Thank you again for reviewing the draft. Please let me know if I may resubmit this draft for review with the updated links. Have a great day! Greatjonesguy (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

I appreciate you taking a look, and I'm glad the sourcing is now accessible. I'll go ahead and resubmit the draft. Greatjonesguy (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@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)

No objections from me. Fermiboson (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: See talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Comment: Rejected means rejected, please do not resubmit. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This was rejected, rejection is meant to be final. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: UPE and socking. S0091 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: See discussion on submitter’s talk regarding the source=chatgpt in ref URLs —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Kinda seems like the only real change since last decline was to remove the source=chatgpt.com from the URL: special:Diff/1308329181/1308353055 —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment: In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, I disclose that I have been paid by my employer for my contributions to this article. Greatjonesguy (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: It's a local company where I live!

CostalCal (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)