Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-processing hell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy Delete I was searching for a criteria to CSD this. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is a neologism or is made up. It is a term used by folk in the photography or video fields; the article's creator seems to be a professional photographer. A Google search yields hits for the term, e.g. Post-Processing Hell. If this was an article, I would probably recommend delete because I could not find any reliable sources. But I don't think references are needed for a simple disambiguation page. Mark viking (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Post-processing, which includes the same disambiguation. Or delete if you must. I spend too many days actually doing post-processing to argue that the term doesn't get said now and then, I just don't see coverage requiring a separate, but functionally identical disambiguation page. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of the Post-processing disambiguation page. I agree redirect is the better option here. Mark viking (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page Post-processing doesn't explain what the word 'hell' stands for. Hence I think, it shouldn't be redirected. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is not the Urban Dictionary --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Replicating the post-processing dab page on the new page doesn't make it a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]