Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat Bowen


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nat Bowen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has previously been deleted twice under CSD criterion WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Those versions were almost identical, but written by a different editor. A third nomination was declined with the rationale that "his has some nice references."

The current version of the article has citations that to a casual reader might look like significant coverage of a successful artists in independent, reliable sources. A closer look shows that Bowen is a (barely) emerging artist, who has not received any critical attention by experts in the serious art press, but did receive some promotional coverage (she has seemingly hired a PR agency) by wellness, lifestyle and beauty editors in fashion, interior design and lifestyle magazines. Lifestyle magazine may be reliable in some contexts, but here they are not, because they lack the expertise to writing knowingly about the subject and mostly just repeat what she says about herself. She meets none of our notability criteria for artists, WP:ARTIST, has not been exhibited in a real gallery (a bar or restaurant doesn't count), has not won any awards and is not represented in any museum collections, or otherwise received any significant critical attention.

In summary; this article that promotes the subject with references to paid-for content in unreliable sources by non-experts.


 * 2019-09-26 The Times Not significant coverage, but note the caption: Nat Bowen with some of her large-scale resin artworks, which will be on display at the Start contemporary art fair at the Saatchi Gallery in Chelsea. (emphasis mine) What you need to know: The START Art Fair took place from 26-29 September at the Saatchi Gallery. https://startartfair.com/ It is not curated by the Saatchi gallery, participants pay a fee (between £4,500 and £15,000).
 * 2020-10-08 Evening Standard, by Abbianca Makoni, a crime reporter. The headline (note: headlines are typically NOT written by the reporter, but by a cipy editor) is sensational, £100,000 artwork made from meteorite dust and black diamonds to go on show at the Saatchi Gallery. But the Saatchi gallery did not exhibit it, it was merely the venue of an art fair, where Bowen (or her agent) paid for a booth. Note that the article does not report on an event that took place, it's an announcement. The price is also misleading; it's the asking price, not what it sold for, if it sold at all, because it is still listed at https://natbowen.com/back-to-light-saatchi-gallery For the curious, "Black Diamond pigment" is a trade name for a cheap mica-based pigment. 1000 carats of (real) crushed black diamonds may sound expensive, but it really isn't. Diamond powder is a common abrasive, and 200 grams of it might cost as little as 10 USD.
 * 2021-04-12 Forbes is not a reliable source when written by a "Contributor". See WP:FORBES
 * 2021-05-10 The Daily Telegraph This was first published in the Business section of The Daily Telegraph and like the Times is a caption of a photo of the artist posing in front of one of her works. This one is supposedly made of "natural pink rose petal pigment" That sounds precious, but rose petal pigment is a commonly used pigment in cosmetics, mostly consisting of iron oxides. Pink diamond powder is also used in cosmetics.
 * 2021-05-28 Vanity Fair This one is not bylined, but written by "V.F. Art" which is hyperlinkeed to https://www.vanityfairart.com/. That domain hasn't go a proper certificate, but redirects to https://www.worldofinteriors.co.uk/interiors-index, another Condé Nast publication that "uniquely places the finest craftsman, artisans, textile designers, galleries, ateliers, artists and workshops at the fingertips of our followers and readers". Also, anything that starts with "is pleased to announce" or "proud to unveil her latest" is a press release.
 * 2021-06-01 Tatler by Hope Coke, the Social Media Editor at Tatler. Again, it's an announcement, not a review, of an event in the bar of a hotel.
 * 2021-06-10 Marie Claire, by Marzia Nicolini their Wellness & Beauty Editor. Basically an advertorial for https://thew1london.com/ (it looks like https://thew1london.com/property/townhouse-5/)
 * 2021-08-06 by Leanne Bayley, Head of Lifestyle. Note the "We may earn a commission for products purchased through links in this article" at the top. One of those links is https://www.dorchestercollection.com/en/london/45-park-lane/art/
 * 2021-09-19 The Up Coming, written by "The editorial unit" calls Bowen "one of the UK’s leading abstract resin artists". That also how Bowen describes herself ("a leading British abstract resin artist"). It's not so clear who the other leading abstract resin artists are.
 * 2021-09-28 Forbes, by Kate Hardcastle, another Forbes Contributor and highly respected and successful businesswoman with award winning success in delivering commercial & successful ventures and partnerships, according to herself. Here Bowen is given space to suggest that her smaller works would make "a possible investment for more people".

Vexations (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Very detailed analysis, she doesn't seem notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Vexations analysis of the sourcing. This depth of research into the sourcing of a subject at AfD is key to determining if a subject is actually notable, or if the "sources" are PR-placement of native advertising. The subject of this article does not meet our criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ginbopewz (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2021 (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.