Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pictures for Sad Children

Puppets?
Would it be a case of very bad faith if I asked for a sockpuppet enquiry?  Yinta n  18:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It already exists. I submitted it yesterday due to too many red flags. -- Dane 2007  talk 18:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm think there is definitely some meat-puppetry at the least going on. (And to be honest I have no idea what's the "controversy" either) RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it's not just me then. Thanks.  Yinta n  18:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Link for reference Argento Surfer (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * When fresh accounts are diving into an AFD and talking about policy, go for it - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not related, and meat puppetry unlikely. Meters (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad to hear that. Now I know I'm dealing with 'real people' and that's a relief.  Yinta n  17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The deciding admin determined that it was unlikely to be meat puppetry based on geography, but it seems to me the the replacement of the comic's archive at http://picturesforsadchildren.com/ with "pictures for sad children returns with archives when the wikipedia entry has been removed" is clear evidence of the likelihood of WP:MEAT based on the canvassing. The removal of the line from the webpage now that the issue has been raised at Wikipedia doesn't change things. Pinging the deciding admin User:Bbb23. Meters (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I phrased my finding the way I did was because I was not addressing the possibility of canvassing. I meant only that it was unlikely the users were friends.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)