Close focus is a blade that cut both ways. The greater the magnification, the bigger details become, yet concomitantly depth of field declines rapidly. This because depth of field mainly depends on magnification, not focal length. Even closed all the way down, you cannot get much moire than a few mm zone of sharpness at 1:1 with *any* lens. At 1:2, you get more, but still we are talking about 2 cm at most.
Thus, from a depth-of-field point of view, there are nothing beneficial with wide-angle lenses. On the contrary, you get awkward short working distance and no gain in sharpness extension.
One has to balance this by looking at two other aspects. Firstly, as perspective is controlled by the distance between camera and subject, being up close entails having a much steeper perspective. As 'perspective' is nothing other than the spatial relationships between elements inside the frame, the image might look less flattened compared to a picture taken with a longer lens (which has a longer working distance by default). Secondly, and probably the most important from a visual standpoint, is that although the short focal length does not increase depth of field, it does reduce the blur of confusion circles. Thus, although background never can be sharp when the lens is focused to 1:2 or thereabouts, it still can give sufficient impression to allow the human mind to understand what it might be.
Personally I find the best compromise to be 1:3 to 1:4 when shooting with short focal lenses, but of course going the extra mile closer can be useful. However, don't fall into the trap of believing you can get everything sharp (by a single capture, focus stacking is something else).
