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.
Fails
WP:BIO1E. Known for signing the manifesto in
Art Concret (which he did since he co-lodged with
Jean Hélion). The same, not too long, blurb about him is repeated in multiple sources. Subsequent to 1930 he was a proof reader and active in trade unions - not grounds for notability.
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I oppose the proposal to delete this article on the grounds that his name is included in every single reference book of the many that mention the
Art Concret group. 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 on 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)
14:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The article is fine as a stub and it is properly sourced. For readers interested in the history of non-representational art the manifesto is an important document and having some information on Wantz, as one of the signatories, is helpful.
Mduvekot (
talk)
14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Editor appears not to have read the Art Concret article, which is mainly about the contents of the review, to which Wantz did not contribute. The information about his subsequent career and political activity would also be off-topic there.
Sweetpool50 (
talk)
20:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per
WP:A7. There is no indication of importance in the article. It does not tell us what this person even did. Was he an artist? Something else? Sandstein 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I dont see a person "set up or arrange or conduct" meetings for notable magazine or was a friend of/associate with some artist make a person notable as notability is not based on association or inherited for relationships does not confer nobility
WP:INVALIDBIO. Delete based on
WP:A7.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)15:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for failing notability guidelines. Above all
WP:GNG but he misses the mark as an artist (he was not one), a journalist (chief proof reader isn't even an editorial position), and politics (not elected to a notable position).
Ifnord (
talk)
17:57, 26 January 2018 (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.
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.
Fails
WP:BIO1E. Known for signing the manifesto in
Art Concret (which he did since he co-lodged with
Jean Hélion). The same, not too long, blurb about him is repeated in multiple sources. Subsequent to 1930 he was a proof reader and active in trade unions - not grounds for notability.
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I oppose the proposal to delete this article on the grounds that his name is included in every single reference book of the many that mention the
Art Concret group. 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 on 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)
14:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The article is fine as a stub and it is properly sourced. For readers interested in the history of non-representational art the manifesto is an important document and having some information on Wantz, as one of the signatories, is helpful.
Mduvekot (
talk)
14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Editor appears not to have read the Art Concret article, which is mainly about the contents of the review, to which Wantz did not contribute. The information about his subsequent career and political activity would also be off-topic there.
Sweetpool50 (
talk)
20:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per
WP:A7. There is no indication of importance in the article. It does not tell us what this person even did. Was he an artist? Something else? Sandstein 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I dont see a person "set up or arrange or conduct" meetings for notable magazine or was a friend of/associate with some artist make a person notable as notability is not based on association or inherited for relationships does not confer nobility
WP:INVALIDBIO. Delete based on
WP:A7.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)15:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for failing notability guidelines. Above all
WP:GNG but he misses the mark as an artist (he was not one), a journalist (chief proof reader isn't even an editorial position), and politics (not elected to a notable position).
Ifnord (
talk)
17:57, 26 January 2018 (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.