Talk:Marcel Wantz

Deletion proposal
I have just deleted the proposal to delete this article. While Marcel Wantz was not particularly notable himself, his name is included in every single reference book of the many that mention the Art Concret group. Most of these assume that he was an artist, although some foreign language sources (Dutch Wikipedia, for instance) also describe him correctly as a typographer. In addition, there are fuller details in the Maitron biographical dictionary, to which I do not have a subscription. His name also occurs in histories of Le Monde, so he is not remembered only for his connection with the art manifesto, as was claimed.

The strong point I would make in favour of retaining the article is that an encyclopaedia is the natural place to turn for information about a subject so commonly mentioned. It may be that Wantz is not so high profile as textbooks make him seem, but unless there is an article on him, readers will simply assume that WP is falling down on its job and continue to redlink his name in articles where he is mentioned. We're dealing with something of a methodological paradox here. Wantz is notable enough to require an article and it is only in reading about him that one learns that he is not ultimately notable! There are similar instances of this which form a precedent. Daniel Dancer, although the subject of numerous articles when accounts of misers were in vogue, ultimately owes his place in textbooks to mention of those accounts in a novel by Charles Dickens. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)