User talk:Infoarts444

I was not sure if the editing history captured my explanation of why the neologism/original research objection was not approriate.

I added two paragraphs to clarify the origins and use of the term Hybrid Arts. It is an error to call this a neologism. The critical community in the arts is always needing to coin terms to cover new movements in the arts. Hybrid Arts is the term used by practitioners, academics, journalists for this kind of art. It promises to become a fixture of art analysis and it is a term that people will use to search. It should remain. The Art, Science, Technology phrase is there to clarify for people who may not yet be familiar with the term.

Also the claim that this is a report of original research has missed the general information value of this article. There are many books being published, organizations working on these issues, festivals showing the work, and university programs being established. The article was designed to give the reader an orientation to this kind of art, offer some examples of the fields it covers, and key resources to followup. There is a large worldwide community contributing to this field and they would hardly consider this original research. It is written in neutral terms with a view toward giving an overview and links to resources just as would be expected in an encyclopedia article.

I object to the deletion and ask you to leave the article in. It will be a resource to those seeking to learn more about this form of art. -Thanks Infoarts444 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hybrid arts


A tag has been placed on Hybrid arts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Hybrid arts and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem the person who proposed speedy deletion has with this article. This person claims it is promotional advertising. As explained in the talk page hybrid arts is a growing movement in the arts. There is a worldwide community of artists, theorists, professors, organizations students, curators etc. interested in this approach. One only need access some of the web sites or read the books listed in the article. The article serves the purpose of introducing this field and would be a service to the wikipedia community. It purposely does not promote one artist or source but gives an overview. There is no company called hybrid arts.