Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MystiCon
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
— User:Rainet, 06:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SPIP||WP:ROUTINE (Wikipedia:Notability)