Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmedia Activism (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedia Activism

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

Article about a neologism that fails the general notability guideline. Co-authored by two conflicted SPAs quoting their own work at length. Appears to be an attempt to bootstrap the term into greater currency by creating a Wikipedia article about it. No third-party coverage -- which might matter if Wikipedia were a dictionary, but it isn't. Previous AfD was aborted. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Transmedia storytelling? --Pleasantville (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article reports on original research, and the references are not independent, but connected with the people who developed the concept. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep as references have not collaborated to build the article; not sure why connection to people matters, especially if those mentioned in transmedia storytelling and many others are all connected. Disclosure: I am one of the people quoted - I can tell you with certainty that we are NOT quoting each other. This is not a marketing ruse or an attempt to sell anything of any kind. If you look at the examples, you can see this movement is very real, and while nascent, a very influential form of activism that can help change the way people look at causes in the world, as well as how they can get involved with them. Reference to neologism is completely absurd and inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonth (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC) — Goonth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Two major contributors to the article, who were editing it when it was still a userspace draft, are quoted at length. Regarding nascent movements, please see WP:UPANDCOMING. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. This is a recreation of a page that was deleted three weeks ago, and this version is almost identical in its text and content to the one deleted after the prior discussion. It's still original research and complete bollocks that sounds like it's selling something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or put a brief paragraph in Transmedia storytelling. (The poor thing doesn't deserve the whole of this dumped on it...) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get from this article is that some people have thought of using multimedia techniques for getting other people involved with things. And that some people have decorated this idea utilising polysyllabic metamorphoses of otherwise simple concepts. The referencing does appear a bit closed circuit, but having read the article twice, I didn't have the courage to dip in. If any of it is truly independent, I'm sure someone will tell me. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is aimed at selling the books - if it is then it functions as antispam to me. Peridon (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Transmedia storytelling. Doesn't this article suffer from many of the same defects as Transmedia activism, minus the COI? Ditto Transmedial play. Quite apart from all three being overburdened with the same kind of grandiloquent guff, the sourcing for each is all quite poor. I don't see that any of these neologisms enjoys sufficient currency to merit a standalone article. It seems to me that the point of each article is to try to increase the currency of the term by creating an article about it on Wikipedia, rather than what it should be: to explain a concept that already has already received significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does suffer from many of the same defects. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and SALT it this time. Re-creation of similarly crappy article from just a couple weeks ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with transmedia storytelling. There may be some logic to moving the key points of this article to a paragraph within the transmedia storytelling article for the moment, until more has been published about transmedia activism. That said, the difference between this iteration of the article and the previous one is that it now cites a number of existing published sources and concrete examples. Also, the idea seems pretty clear: transmedia stories are narratives that move across different media platforms. So the person following the narrative has to look across different kinds of media to follow the story. Some activists are starting to use this as a strategy, and calling it transmedia activism. And some scholars are starting to write about how this is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.120.66 (talk • contribs) — 12.190.120.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The problem with all of the sources furnished so far is that they are controlled by the people who are mentioned in the article as having done the research. If the only sources are by the researchers, then the article is reporting on original research and is not acceptable for Wikipedia. We need independent sources to establish notability, and we don't yet have them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, fails WP:GNG due to little/no significant coverage of this term from independent sources, most of the article appears to be a thinly-veiled attempt at shoehorning this term into Wikipedia. I don't see anything anything sourceable worth merging into any other article at this time. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:48, 19 November 2010 (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.