Deletion of MystiCon

Comment: Article does not meet speedy deletion criteria.   G11 makes no reference to the intent of the person creating the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: Article appears to satisfy  and  . Regardless of the intent of the creators, an article in compliance with Wikipedia policy should not be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: as subject is covered in-depth in multiple reliable third-party sources and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. The fact that no editor has created the SheVaCon article yet is not relevant, per , and the "chicken or the egg" conundrum
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: Many commentators here have focused on the coverage in the Roanoke Times. However, it is local coverage of the sort that doesn't on its own demonstrate notability (see  and generally discussions and outcomes relating to local-only coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOSCOPE)

Comment: Does not meet , even through .  The article is little more than a directory entry on a convention, and WP is not a directory OTDIR.  Furthermore, all the sources referenced treat this as a localized event, rather than a long-running con of significant enough import to gain an article.  When considering sources, remember EWS - news coverage should be in-depth and lengthy articles, ESPECIALLY when using news sources as support for verifiability.  WP should only cover recurring events, like conventions, if it is well-established, with significant attendance, and of wide note OR if the events that took place at one instance of the recurring event were of major note
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:LOCAL||WP:NOTDIR||WP:NEWS)

Comment: I'm not going to take the time to create an account, but I want to add something to the discussion.  I, too, stumbled upon this by the Erfworld thing and have personally experienced an editor who goes out of his way to delete an article on Wikipedia instead of providing help as to what was wrong with the article only to insist in every comment that the article MUST be deleted (which is why I read this in the first place).  Going through List_of_science_fiction_conventions, there are some articles linked off of there that are clearly in worse shape than this current article.  Furthermore, List_of_science_fiction_conventions can be considered direct violation of , therefore, should be removed because it, too, can be considered a promotional type of page, based on locations given and dates of the next occurrence.  However, that being said, this article has its own merit, but needs to be cleaned up, significantly, before it should be considered WP viable.  I believe future events should not be addressed past when the next convention will occur and where, as any key note speakers, groups, etc could be considered "promotional material".  The external link should be enough to provide information to those who are interested.  Past events are ok, and should deal with key points, speakers, notable events, etc that occurred during the convention.  More history in the convention, even the scandalous circumstances in its founding, should be noted as well (which would provide it more referenceable information).  See Ad_Astra_(convention), Finncon, and MarsCon_(Bloomington,_Minnesota) for more of what this article should be.Also, if references are such a problem, then MarsCon_(Bloomington,_Minnesota) needs to be deleted.  There are no references of any kind on the page to speak, nor are there any on MarsCon_(Williamsburg,_Virginia), nor on several more of the conventions linked from the list.  The argument for deletion here seems to be less about the fact that this event isn't referenceable, but more about the continuity of the event, as it has only seen one gathering to date.  It is not a "significant" event, therefore, loses its ability to be referenced on Wikipedia.  I don't agree with that at all.Therefore, just clean up the page with the sandbox and previews, add a little more information.  Fight for this to be kept if you so desire, but if it is deleted, present a much more detailed article in the future, perhaps after the second successful convention. -Special:Contributions/66.209.247.246|66.209.247.246
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: To the best of my understanding, the person writing the WP article does not need to be impartial, only write in an unbiased manner, which they appear to have done; only the SOURCES are required to be written by unbiased/unconnected individuals () which they were.  That being said, I am unsure of the validity of the sources, being new to this whole editing thing (as someone might bother looking up and pointing out, new account, first comment).  I would be curious in hearing the perspective of a more experienced editor on the fact that the coverage appears, to me, to have been largely of the nature of "routine news coverage" and thus, non-notable under () Additionally, of the 7 sources cited, Source 1 is an announcement,Source 4 is referenced but completely unused, Source 5 is a blog, and Sources 6 and 7 are biased.  Only sources 2 and 3 appear to be legitimate, WP-notability plausible references, and even their notability is debatable.  Additionally, as this convention is only about a month old, this page does appear somewhat... premature, to me.  That being said, if the sources (namely, 2 and 3) are deemed sufficient by more experienced editors than I, I believe this page should be kept.  It isn't an advertisement, its objective, and it increases the total knowledge contained in Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP||WP:ROUTINE)