The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, authored by "freelance writer" who makes a living providing "social media content for a variety of businesses". See Talk:Pharos Systems International#Summary of issues with this article. DanielPenfield ( talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I thought that the COI issue had been resolved. Another editor removed the tag last week and wrote the following (in part): "I have looked at this article per your request. It seems properly tagged regarding issues which should be improved. First the conflict of interest seems least relevant. In fact I am removing that one because there is no evidence that your association with the subject has manifest in the article prose. Actually you did a good job in that regard, In my opinion. Cheers. My76Strat 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)"
Also, I have made every change requested by this editor and others to make the article more notable.
Given these two facts, I do not understand why this article is marked for deletion.
Kristigaylord ( talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: This is a half-hearted vote for deletion. The article isn't too bad but there isn't much in the references to prove notability. The sources tend to be either local ones, directories, or affiliated parties. Regarding COI, I was puzzled by it's removal and replacement with the advert template. The point of the COI template is to indicate possible bias, and something that reads like an advertisement is pretty clearly biased, and the editor has at least historic ties to Pharos. Restoring the COI template gets to the heart of the matter. Kristi has toned down the article but it still fails to prove notability. Kristi, I would suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on Notability (organizations and companies) and see how the Pharos International article fits the criteria. -- Beirne ( talk) 18:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I have reread the article about notability, and I agree that my article could raise some concerns in some minds. What’s disconcerting is that I have read many articles on Wikipedia that get a much lower grade on the notability test than my article about Pharos Systems. In any event, I’ve done all I can to respond to recommendations from a variety of editors. Writing a Wikipedia article about Pharos was something that I thought would be fun to do in my spare time. It’s time for me to pull the plug on the article. Kristigaylord ( talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, authored by "freelance writer" who makes a living providing "social media content for a variety of businesses". See Talk:Pharos Systems International#Summary of issues with this article. DanielPenfield ( talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I thought that the COI issue had been resolved. Another editor removed the tag last week and wrote the following (in part): "I have looked at this article per your request. It seems properly tagged regarding issues which should be improved. First the conflict of interest seems least relevant. In fact I am removing that one because there is no evidence that your association with the subject has manifest in the article prose. Actually you did a good job in that regard, In my opinion. Cheers. My76Strat 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)"
Also, I have made every change requested by this editor and others to make the article more notable.
Given these two facts, I do not understand why this article is marked for deletion.
Kristigaylord ( talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: This is a half-hearted vote for deletion. The article isn't too bad but there isn't much in the references to prove notability. The sources tend to be either local ones, directories, or affiliated parties. Regarding COI, I was puzzled by it's removal and replacement with the advert template. The point of the COI template is to indicate possible bias, and something that reads like an advertisement is pretty clearly biased, and the editor has at least historic ties to Pharos. Restoring the COI template gets to the heart of the matter. Kristi has toned down the article but it still fails to prove notability. Kristi, I would suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on Notability (organizations and companies) and see how the Pharos International article fits the criteria. -- Beirne ( talk) 18:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply
I have reread the article about notability, and I agree that my article could raise some concerns in some minds. What’s disconcerting is that I have read many articles on Wikipedia that get a much lower grade on the notability test than my article about Pharos Systems. In any event, I’ve done all I can to respond to recommendations from a variety of editors. Writing a Wikipedia article about Pharos was something that I thought would be fun to do in my spare time. It’s time for me to pull the plug on the article. Kristigaylord ( talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply