Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affichiste

: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 keep. Potential merge not ruled out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Affichiste]]=

:{{la|Affichiste}} ([{{fullurl:Affichiste|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affichiste}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

non-notable dictionary definition; it is unclear whether this term is in actual use anyways, even in French, except simply to mean "poster designer", which is what "affichiste" means in French. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Term is clearly in actual use as GBooks shows. [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=Affichiste&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp] Numerous Google hits as well [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Affichiste&btnG=Google+Search] Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
… in French language sources. But since this is the English language Wikipedia, our article titles are in English, and an article about poster designers would be at poster designer, just as our article on graphic designers is at graphic designer, not the French language title graphiste (c.f. :fr:graphiste). Uncle G (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep - no good as a dicdef, the Gbooks references demonstrate use of the word in French; but OK as a stub about the artistic school/movement - which is how the article started out - with a valid reference to the term in an English art book. I have removed the first sentence which made it seem a dicdef, and reworded the rest slightly to bring it more in line with the source cited. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at references online, it is clear that, even in French, the word just means "poster designer". The word is no longer being used in the specific way that these guys back in the 1950s used it. So, I guess the question is whether an artistic movement that consisted basically of two guys is significant enough for its own article, or if it should be a footnote somewhere else. (And for Hains, it looks like it was only a phase in the early part of his career.) Brianyoumans (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the notability of the "movement" is marginal, but both artists are notable enough to have articles, and I think a [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+%22affichiste%22+Hains+Villegl%C3%A9&hl=en&lr=lang_en&sa=X&oi=lrtip8 Scholar search] turns up enough to make it a "keep". JohnCD (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep and Merge - Marginal notability. I doubt this is ever going to be much of an article in its own right, but it would be a pity to lose it altogether, so it could redirect to a section within poster or poster designer. --RichardVeryard (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.