Deletion of Transmedia Activism (2nd nomination)

Comment: fails  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as article reports on |original research, and the references are not independent, but connected with the people who developed the concept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:CB||WP:SPAM)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SIGCOV)