Deletion of Pictures for Sad Children

Comment: Doesn't matter that it is offline now, the comic's history makes it notable. It was a finalist for an award, there's been an expo about it, the whole 'burning books' thing, etc. In my opinion it (just) meets . If the author doesn't like being on Wikipedia, well, bad luck, that's completely irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: I'm on the fence about this one. I think maybe, possibly this could skirt by  as stated above but, I'm just not seeing it. This one is close, but the article seems to be more about the artist and their Kickstarter issues more than anything else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS and possibly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: WP:RECENT, , , Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:BIO)

Comment: Between full Google searches and news-only searches, this seems to be on the bubble of notability. It averages 100+ views per day, so users are still interested in it. It has a high ratio of primary to tertiary sources, but that's no reason to delete. Nominator's rationale isn't in line with policy. Assuming the claim that the archive will be put back online if this page is deleted, then Parabolist's argument becomes self-defeating. Thoughtmonkey dismisses it as an event by a non-notable person, but the comic and ''events themselves'' seem notable per coverage. NoThanks fails to understand . Relaxing links to relevant essays, but does not actually make a point with them. A quick search of Google News shows at least two articles from 2016 that give coverage to the story, so the  claim doesn't hold water.  Xaxxyxxxyx makes a lot of unsupported claims. aslamp is refuted per Dane. Bottleofink makes an emotional appeal, but I side with Dane - removing sourced (and undisputed!) information because the subject doesn't like it damages the integrity of Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:RECENT)

Comment: Is there any actual, verified evidence that the artist requested deletion? The reference provided as proof that the artist wants the page deleted just links to a page with clouds. If we're going to consider deletion based on , we have to make sure that the request is at least real. The sources provided in the article show that the person in question has at times been less than honest in their dealings, but as Tokyogirl79 has shown, it's possible to make case for a BLPREQUESTDELETE even if it's not a perfect  fit
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE||WP:LOWPROFILE)