Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Sjardijn (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. I'm finding a delete consensus here as several editors believe notability is not met, one has a keep !vote, and one (Mdd) has given an indepth analysis of the sources and their limitations. However, if or some other editor wants me a copy of the article in an attempt to do a rewrite and demonstrate notability please email me and I would be happy to provide. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Sjardijn
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner  talk 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  The Banner  talk 23:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * comment The English version doesn't look great, nor the French version. I can't read Polish - does pl:Martin_Sjardijn supply any more evidence of notability that meets en:wp criteria? WP:BEFORE shows a flat zero results for Sjardijn on Google News, doesn't look good at all - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited in the Polish article are actually in Polish, so there's no real need to understand the language to make a judgement - just Dutch and English. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete the only coverage I can find is that he has a Wikipedia page. Article is entirely promotional. Even the bloated external links section does not contain any independent sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep based on the (old!) article sources mentioned by MDD below. We should at least link these from the talk page, if not add them to the actual article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Wikipedia page is indeed promotional because it is focussed on one of the idea's of this elder artists, which for some reason he wants to keep promoting. Both the page, the primary sources mentioned, and the links added, focus on promoting this one idea: the Weightless Sculpture Project. Now the artist is retired and the ordinary Google sources doesn't give us much to work with. However if you read the arguments of the first AfD nomination from 2006, I think those arguments still hold. This artist has initiated a series of representation in national newspapers since the 1970s, see here, and a small series of magazine articles, see here. There are at least a dozen longer articles from secondary sources with some significant coverage of his work. Take for example his first mayor newspaper article "Fantasiedorpen bouwen met de hele buurt" in the Nieuwe Leidsche Courant in 1971, see here. There is half a page of coverage of his "Werkgroep Speelbouw" initiative, which he started with Nout Visser. There are over the years about another dozen of similar initiatives by this artist, which drew some regional, national and international attention. All together he never had a world wide break through, but he did play some notable role in the development of the computer art in the Netherlands as artist, as teacher in several institutes, and a contractor for several museums. -- Mdd (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable artist who does not meet our inclusion criteria. I can only wish those criteria had been enforced back in 2006, then the project would not be so littered with not updated articles on marginal people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to have been copied form kabk.academia.edu/MartinSjardijn/CurriculumVitae Vexations (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Note: the article cannot have been copied from that URL because it predates the existance of academia.edu. Vexations (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to the links provided by Mdd, it is possible to see that there is significant coverage of this artist in NRC Handelsblad (1987, and shorter in 1986 and 1994 ); in Het Binnenhof , ; in Beeldraad (1993) ; and in Stroom (1993) . Some of the articles mentioned by Mdd are by Martin Sjardijn, and therefore don't contribute to his notability. I would not expect someone who was active in the pre-internet years to appear in Google News, but rather in archived news sources such as those given above. It will need someone with knowledge of Dutch to add them to the article as cited sources - as they aren't accompanied by text versions of their contents, it's not possible (without a lot of effort) to use Google Translate. A quick skim does show, though, that they verify information in the article such as his training at the Royal Academy of Art, The Hague, where he also later taught (not yet in the article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a native Dutch speaker, so I'll have a go at explaining what is in the sources. is description of a proposed artwork and interview with the artists for the occasion of an exhibition at what is now called Kunstmuseum Den Haag. The articles discusses a simulation that is run in the nl:Omniversum and explains how Sjardijn's proposal for a line in space was rejected by a funding body for art in public space and evolved into a failed proposal to centennial of the Eifeltower, a space mirror.  In the interview, Sjardijn claims that "the transsimulative road that I travel has incredible potential." He's encourgaed by the response from Christo and others, and seems to think that the project can be realized for 5 million gulden (approx. € 4 M today), excluding the cost of the launch.
 * is an exhibition review of a group show in the Jaarbeurs to which Sjardijn contributed a work called tijd bestaat niet (en: time does not exist): " Translation: It is composed of discs that rotate against each other bearing markings that indicate the universe and an earth clock with a seconds hand. The whole makes clear that our timekeeping ceases to be logical and obvious. Moreover, the work  looks attractive.
 * has a brief mention of Sjardijn's spacemirror in a discussion of an Bulletin Board System that provides access to an art database. "One press on the button and be my telematic lover tonight" of Lubbers himself, "Spacemirror 1986" by Martin Sjardijn or selfpromotional earring'' by Sander Kessels are in your own personal computer."
 * and are of such poor resolution that the article (continued from the front page) is very difficult to read.
 * is a review of a commision for an artwork that is installed in a primary school. Unfortunately, it is not bylined and gives no indication of when and where it was published. On sjardijn's website, there is a link to the copy of the article with the anchot text "Stroom Journal 3 - Sculptuur voor de Buitenaardse Ruimte - 1993" I'm fairly certain that that is a reference to a publication by nl:Stroom Den Haag, an organization that provides funding for public sculpture.
 * is about a collective, established in 1970, that created a playground in Voorburg and mentions Sjardijn as one of the members. He provides some quotes for the article and explains how the group's starting point is participation by the youth for whom the playground is built. Translation: "Unfortunately, this method was not entirely possible with our project. The garden is not used by children from a certain neighborhood. Who should you ask for help? We have overcome this handicap by involving the young users in the construction of the sculpture."
 * I can't find a discussion of his teaching in any of the sources mentioned above, but https://www.haagsekunstenaars.nl/cv/665 that he was a docent at the Royal Academy of Art, The Hague(2007–2009) and University of Amsterdam (2000–2005) Vexations (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Thank you, Vexations, for the explanations and translations. As the best coverage (in terms of length, reliability and independence) is about a failed proposal for an artwork, it doesn't really satisfy WP:NARTIST, which requires the person to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources, that are reviews of works he created, don't add up to enough or probably aren't independent (so even if we could read the unreadable one, it would still not be enough to establish notability). So I have struck my Keep vote and changed to Delete. If Mdd can show other significant coverage about him and his work, not by him, in independent, reliable sources, I would be happy to reconsider. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * is about a collective, established in 1970, that created a playground in Voorburg and mentions Sjardijn as one of the members. He provides some quotes for the article and explains how the group's starting point is participation by the youth for whom the playground is built. Translation: "Unfortunately, this method was not entirely possible with our project. The garden is not used by children from a certain neighborhood. Who should you ask for help? We have overcome this handicap by involving the young users in the construction of the sculpture."
 * I can't find a discussion of his teaching in any of the sources mentioned above, but https://www.haagsekunstenaars.nl/cv/665 that he was a docent at the Royal Academy of Art, The Hague(2007–2009) and University of Amsterdam (2000–2005) Vexations (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Thank you, Vexations, for the explanations and translations. As the best coverage (in terms of length, reliability and independence) is about a failed proposal for an artwork, it doesn't really satisfy WP:NARTIST, which requires the person to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources, that are reviews of works he created, don't add up to enough or probably aren't independent (so even if we could read the unreadable one, it would still not be enough to establish notability). So I have struck my Keep vote and changed to Delete. If Mdd can show other significant coverage about him and his work, not by him, in independent, reliable sources, I would be happy to reconsider. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Thank you, Vexations, for the explanations and translations. As the best coverage (in terms of length, reliability and independence) is about a failed proposal for an artwork, it doesn't really satisfy WP:NARTIST, which requires the person to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". The other sources, that are reviews of works he created, don't add up to enough or probably aren't independent (so even if we could read the unreadable one, it would still not be enough to establish notability). So I have struck my Keep vote and changed to Delete. If Mdd can show other significant coverage about him and his work, not by him, in independent, reliable sources, I would be happy to reconsider. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Non notable, fails WP:GNG. Secondly this article is purely copied from his CV at http://kabk.academia.edu/MartinSjardijn/CurriculumVitae. If anybody wants to expand this, advise to do it in draft/sandbox. - Jay (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Second comment by Mdd
 * After studying this case some more I have concluded, that this article is outdated. If it was up to me, the current four tags will be replaced by one tag, and the article would be kept online for a certain period for half year or so. Then it can be either improved or can be moved out of the main space. I noticed:


 * 1) This article has been written by the Martin Sjardijn himself and/or people close to him on the Dutch Wikipedia early 2005, , and has been translated here by the similar people in june 2006 ,
 * 2) The professional artist Martin Sjardijn has had a respectable career as artist in multiple ways:
 * 3) As conceptual artist being one of the first to present the idea of art in space in The Netherlands since the 1980s;
 * 4) As a teacher at the TU Delft and The Haque art academy ;
 * 5) As co-founder of the notable art center the nl:Haags Centrum voor Actuele Kunst (The Haque Center for Actual Art) ;
 * 6) As designer with the French Group Ludic and the Dutch Werkgroep Speelbouw early 1970s;
 * 7) As sub contractor for the The Hague nl:Omniversum in the 1980s presenting one of the first VR animations in the Netherlands.
 * 8) As subcontractor for the Groninger Museum experimenting and presenting one of the first digitalized museum configurations in the Netherlands.
 * 9) As family man raising a son as an artist, which made a notable entrance in the art world; An another probably daughter (?) who made some interesting contributions, which was represented in the media as well; and his later partner is a notable writer as well
 * 10) As son of an amateur painter, whose early work and later work was exhibited in the region and draw some attention.
 * 11) As writer, public speaker, designer of websites and other installations he made some contributions as well.
 * 12) Beside the series of 25+ hits in national newspapers for 1972 to 1995, and a dozen longer magazine articles on his work, this gives us enough independent secondary sources, beside the many primary sources to build a respectable Wiki article.
 * 13) There is not a single argument brought forward, why this artist give the circumstances should fail WP:GNG. The current article evidently doesn't give us enough information about secondary source to determine this for ourselves.
 * 14) The http://kabk.academia.edu/MartinSjardijn/CurriculumVitae is not that old. The http://kabk.academia.edu website seem to be online since 2010
 * 15) Around every source mentioned early there are indeed dozens of other sources, that either confirm or sometimes contradict the information. It would be a mistake to think, that these are not independent. The Netherlands is a small country and if artists are still alive, it is often custom to involve them one way or another. Bold statements as "Hagenaar als eerste met kunst in the ruimte" (person from The Haque the first with art in space) are on the account of the news paper and the news reporter, that wrote down his name. They are accountable here for this news, and their reputation is on the line.
 * A longer article about Martin Sjardijn and the development of his work will give us a unique inside in fifty years of development of the art scene in The Hague. Keeping this article on line here a little longer might be an invitation for people to go an extra mile here. this could benefit us all. -- Mdd (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you may be right, but I would imagine that most of us here (Vexations excepted) do not speak Dutch. The effective route here is to add some of those 25 sources (the in-depth ones) to the article, and then ping the delete voters above to ask them to reconsider.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * yep. Verifiable sources would be a long way to a convincing argument - David Gerard (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm puzzled by your claim that Sjardijn taught at the TU Delft, and it raises concerns for me about the verifiability if your other claims. Even Sjardijn himself doesn't claim that he taught there in the deletion discussion on the article about him in the Dutch Wikipedia even though he discusses his teaching positions elsewhere. Can you show us the sources that support your claims? That would go a long way. Vexations (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , my comment intends to give an overview of his work and impact... and I might have missed a detail or two. I for example didn't notice yet, that he was teacher of Virtual Realities at the University of Amsterdam, see here. In the Dutch article it was stated that "Op de Technische Universiteit Delft experimenteerde hij onder leiding van prof. dr. ir. Erik Jansen." The saying "onder leiding van" generally means he was employed there. -- Mdd (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, no an uncited statement in the Dutch Wikipedia (the claim is pretty much a verbatim copy of his CV, which also says "Op de Technische Universiteit Delft experimenteerde hij onder leiding van prof. dr. ir. Erik Jansen en ir. Jouke Verlinden met een Head Mounted Display van virtuallity verbonden met een tactile force feedback dataglove.") doesn't mean it can be reliably verified with independent sources that he taught there at all. Vexations (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you have seen http://www.sjardijn.com/doc/cv.html . He was teacher for five years at the Vrije Academie Den Haag, and for five years at the University of Amsterdam. The exact nature of his cooperation at the TU Delft is still unclear. -- Mdd (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Even if "the exact nature of his cooperation at the TU Delft is still unclear": Can we agree that he was not a a full professor anywhere, ever. and not assistant professor nl:Universitair docent at the TU Delft? And can we also agree that WP:PROF applies, and that the fact that he taught at the Vrije Academie and the UVA does not make him notable unless we have several independent sources that discuss his work as a teacher in-depth, and that, as it stands, we do not have these sources? Vexations (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sjardijn classified his work at the TU Delft at the his Linkedin page as (his own) education using the phrases "artist in resident", "Pictor Doctus" and PD probably for Postdoctoral. This work was in the 1990s, and lots of sources from those days cannot be found online. I wonder in return if you have done the math about the assessment I gave about your 30 Nov 2019 comment? -- Mdd (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wonder in return if you have done the math about the assessment I gave about your 30 Nov 2019 comment? I don't understand what you're asking me. On 30 November I wrote that the article appears to have been copied from his CV. What is it that you'd like me to do? Vexations (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have assumed, that the writer of this article copy/pasted the text from the kabk.academia.edu, a website which started in 2010. The particular CV on that website will be published there after 2010. Now the Wikipedia article, we have here, was created in 2006. To be more precise, the kabk.academia.edu biography seem to be an copy of the 22 March 2021 version of the Wikipedia article. Your assumption seems to be incorrect. -- Mdd (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean 2012, not 2021. Alright, when I noticed the similarities between the CV and the Wikipedia article, I did not check the date of creation of http://kabk.academia.edu/MartinSjardijn/CurriculumVitae. I still can't tell from the web page itself when it was created, or where the text originated. The earliest version of the article that is nearly identical that I can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Sjardijn&oldid=75209409. That version of the article must be older than the version I found on academia.edu because Academia.edu was launched two years later, in 2008. The academia.org version is not the source. I'll strike my claim that it is a copyvio of that particular Curriculum Vitae.
 * I do think it is unusual that an CV is a copy of a Wikipedia article, but I cannot prove that the CV was created first, and copied to the article. I also cannot prove that user:Sjardijn, who edited the article, is the subject. I'm failrly confident that IP 62.216.11.44, who first removed the notability tag is Sjardijn, per "Message from Martin Sjardijn: Please have some patience, I don't know how to chat or talk with you, Dutch arthistorians will inform you soon..." in this diff and that the art historian in question is likely J.L. (Hans) Locher whose comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Sjardijn was posted by that same IP 62.216.11.44.
 * In summary: I think that Sjardijn has written or substantially contributed to his own bio. That in itself is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for concern about the neutral point of view, and the verifiabililty of the claims made in the article. Vexations (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In summary: I think that Sjardijn has written or substantially contributed to his own bio. That in itself is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for concern about the neutral point of view, and the verifiabililty of the claims made in the article. Vexations (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In summary: I think that Sjardijn has written or substantially contributed to his own bio. That in itself is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason for concern about the neutral point of view, and the verifiabililty of the claims made in the article. Vexations (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Vexations, earlier sayings and your summary gives us a common ground: There are concerns about puffery, notability and verifiability as David Gerard brought forward 3.5 months ago, and a conflict of interest (COI) and concerns about the neutral point of view (NPOV) as assumed here.

I think the COI-NPOV concerns are for real here. For example, in the latest updates 2017-19 we read that In 2019 he started as a novelist and he added novelist, poetry writer to the introduction. We have an artist, who is (still) using Wikipedia as his personal website to update us about his latest news.

I personally think, the initial article was to much of an explanation, and still is. It might be possible here to give a more proper description, but I think, the article should be practically rewritten from scratch. In order to do so, I think it is crucial to have a common understanding of whether or not this artist is notable of not (to be continued). -- Mdd (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2019 (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.