Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-processing hell

Post-processing hell

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

Appears to be a violation of WP:NEO Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]
    - Exactly. A redirect to an article that doesn't cover the topic is just a redirect for deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 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]
Redirect to Post-processing; it's jargon in a certain field, but seems to lack the sources for notability. Additionally, you could argue it's an obvious combination of "post-processing"(in photography) and "hell"(=bad) so in real-world contexts you don't need an encyclopedia article to say what it means. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In real-world contexts you don't need that Wikipedia redirect either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, we do. It's the obvious preventative measure for stopping the create-nominate-discuss-delete cycle happening again, the next time that someone is so convinced that this is the name that xe starts a duplicate article at this title. We've long used prophylactic redirects at mis-spelled or slang names for exactly this when people have been so convinced of the bad names that they've started articles at them. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Purpose of redirects. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]