Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpscare


 * 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Jumpscare

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It exists in Wikidictionary at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jump_scare. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - Searching both "Jump scare" and "Jump scare meaning" on Google brings up WikiDictionary so not really seeing any benefits to having an article on it, Perhaps a redirect would be better but have no idea where.... – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not overly convinced on keeping this but we're a encyclopedia after all, Plus Sam's done alot of work (Thanks Sam) so meh way aswell keep it – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. AlbinoFerret 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced as well as a dictionary entry - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep I've reworded the article such that it provides some amount of information. It should really be located at Jump scare but I'll leave it where it is for the purposes of not confusing this AfD. The topic clearly passes the GNG through the large number of sources which discuss it, some of which I've added to the article. I'm not going to do much more work on the article for now in case it's deleted as a result of this discussion, but I'm happy to expand it further if kept. Sam Walton (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Sam, and because I honestly believe that it could be expanded further. ansh666 19:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the uncovering of several good sources by Sam Walton. The topic is covered in some depth by several reliable sources so it appears to meet the GNG. -Thibbs (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – per edits and sources added by Sam. This seems to be a legitimate term of art among screenwriters with a tradition and lots of material to explain. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the work put in by Sam. This appears to be an actual term used in filmmaking. -- Calidum  06:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seeing a good amount of sources supporting this as a technique. Agree it was problematic when nominated, though, as a single line opinion. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I didn't see it when nominated, but seems fine now. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 06:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.