Deletion of Macoun Developers Conference

Comment: Non-otability|notable "workshop" that fails |GNG, using multiple instances of a single source and other Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources|Vendor and e-commerce sources with OTADVERTISING|advertisement (OT) and promotional tones. I read the article  and looked at references first for my own assessment before looking at comments. The article is by far sourced with "Heise online" and a problem is that "many mentions" from the same source all count as one for notability. I started going through the sources, that are mostly just product news, which is mentioned in a "keep !vote above, ''"Even WWDC does not get coverage on chip.de, Spiegel, … that goes beyond the '''product news'''."''. Another "support" comment stated ''"So, why is it notable? Continued coverage on Heise Online on a sign of significance. Heise Online is not just one ot the most visited pages in the German IT szene (sic):"''. This is a Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot|boomerang and reasoning that coverage in multiple |reliable sources not connected to the subject is required. The subject is a yearly workshop "conference" that charges attendees for participation. "Speciality" sources reflect advertisement (OT) such as a http://www.macgadget.de/News/2017/05/09/Macoun-2017-Konferenz-f%C3%BCr-Mac-und-iOS-Entwickler-in-Frankfurt-am-Main link from a list of links source that promote the subject with, ''"Also new is a discounted rate for students, students and trainees (99 euros)"'' and words like "According to the organizers". Some such as http://chris.eidhof.nl/post/2013/ this source are |self published and some are SELF|self-published http://www.aaweb.ch/2013/03/video-grundlagen-der-spieleentwicklung-macoun-2012/ blogs that begin with ''"The video of my Introduction to Games Programming"'', or this source; http://chris.eidhof.nl/post/2013/ "It’s the time of the year to write a recap about the things I’ve done this year.". What can appear as a well sourced article can actually be |refbombing if the references from the "same"  are attempted to be used as evidence of notability, or to pass  that states ''"a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."'', so we don't end up with an article that "looks" well sourced but is actually not. There are also  issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:NOTADVERTISING||WP:RS||WP:SELFPUB||WP:RSSELF||WP:REFBOMB||WP:BLP)