Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby mugging

:{{la|Baby mugging}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_mugging Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Baby mugging}})

Extremely limited content, little to no chance of expansion. Fails to pass 4 and 8 - The article, the link from from Internet Phenomena, and all of the source references, except for the Daily Mail, mentioned the creator by name with references to their website. The articles overall tone is that of a free plug for the bloggers website, or tiny bio. Sawta (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Had a look at the article and "stupid" is the gentlest way to describe it. Wikipedia is not the place to parade every half-assed Internet meme. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I almost want to say redirect to Depth of field in the hopes that it might help somebody out, but the kindest result would be delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as soon as possible. Reads like an advert.WP:WWIN SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge into forced perspective#comic effects. This does lack depth, but notability still seems to be established enough to be worth a mention as a bit part. Forced perspective is probably better than depth of field, since the former already has a list of minor uses. (Disclaimer: I'm the one who created the article in contention) Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.