Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-processing hell

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Opinions are split between delete and redirect. So, as a minimum, we have consensus that this shouldn't be an article, hence deletion. Anybody who wants to can editorially create a redirect, and then anybody else is free to take that to RfD if they strongly disagree. Sandstein 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]
- - It was until you removed the disambiguation tag and associated links :-) Mark viking (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't even then. It was only a non-disambiguation page incorrectly tagged as a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk)
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#Purposes of redirects. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there's a need to prevent the article being created again, salting would be the appropriate way rather than redirect, atleast in this case. Redirect shouldn't be done unless the target article explains the redirect. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wrong. Remember that we are writing to be read, and put some thought into the experience for the readers. They know the colloquial name "post-processing Hell"; they put it into Wikipedia; a redirect takes them to the right place. Salting is not for this sort of situation, and doesn't achieve this result. Now go and read Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects for when redirects should and should not actually be done. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, I have read it. 'Post processing hell' is not an alternative name or misspelling to be redirected. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Clearly you haven't read it, otherwise you wouldn't be espousing the incorrect statement above about what redirects are for; as there are plenty of examples there of prophylactic and other redirects that are not "explained by the target article". And clearly both you and JHunterJ also haven't read even the discussion so far on this page, where Mark viking showed pretty much at the start photographers other than Daryl L. Hunter using this colloquial name. It's fairly easy to turn up more by duplicating Mark viking's research, if one pulls one's finger out. Here's another photographer from a different continent confirming the colloquial name, for example. Again, neither of you have apparently read or researched any of this. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is an individual opinion, not a recognized and published alternative name. Suppose, I write a blog calling it as 'Post processing Heaven', can I create a redirect for it in Wikipedia? --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        See below. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Post-processing per compelling arguments made by users ~~JHunterJ,~~ j⚛e decker, Colapeninsula and Uncle G. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may intend to strike my handle there -- my compelling arguments are for deletion. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So stricken... but your responses to arguments further convinced me of the merits of a simple and cheap redirect that serves the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to Post-processing as it is a possible search term. Cavarrone (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible search terms are often best dealt with through search results. Google suggests completing a search on "post-processing" with post-processing scripts folder, post-processing photography, post-processing scripts sabnzbd, post-processing effects, post-processing scripts folder sickbeard, post-processing photography techniques, post-processing of the factorybean object failed, post-processing ir photography, and post-processing failed xml publisher. Those are therefore possible search terms. Shall we create redirects for each of them too? Of should we instead delete post-processing hell and allow it to go naturally to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=post-processing+hell&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 ? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=post-processing+hell&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 just returns a bunch of false positives and no sensible result, so redirecting readers to the only relevant page sounds reasonable. Cavarrone (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously thinking of writing a blog on Post processing heaven and marketing it to see if someone else creates a redirect for it in wikipedia ;-) --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - You aren't thinking, seriously or otherwise. Daryl L. Hunter is a photographer, not some random person with a pseudonym on Wikipedia. So is this person. This is not you making up stuff from thin air. This is colloquial terminology clearly used by practitioners in the field, to the extent that one person was motivated to write an article under the title. Again: We have for many years employed prophylactic redirects in such cases because experience teaches that where one writes an article at a poor title, others will follow. This is simple good sense and forward planning on our parts. We want readers and writers, who only know the colloquial names for things, to be directed to the right places in the encyclopaedia: the latter so that they can read about the subject and learn the proper name, and the former so that they don't end up creating a slew of duplicate articles at poor titles again and again. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that "post-processing" is also not a sensible result, and there is no relevant page, so the redirect should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Which has been refuted above by Colapeninsula. And if you want to fix post-processing so that readers can find about digital image processing, digital image editing, and digital post-processing in still photography rather than video, you have an edit tool. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you and Colapeninsula agree doesn't mean that my disagreement has been refuted. You've also made the logical fallacy that any problems that result from the application of my view must be fixed by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and probably NEO. --No unique names 01:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.