Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sew Fast Sew Easy (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 no consensus. Some reasonable suggestions have been made on other ways to cover this material, possibly with an article on Meyrich. There is also clearly scope to improve the present article, which might succeed in assuaging some concerns. But in any case it's hard to envisage a result where we don't have at least a redirect here. Haukur (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sew Fast Sew Easy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A web search indicates that Sew Fast Sew Easy was a small neighborhood business that failed WP:NCORP. The only references to it are old consumer review and business listing sites. It appears to have had a loyal following but there is no inherent nobility by calling it a "Stitch N'Bitch" cafe. It lacks corporate depth and independent coverage. Blue Riband► 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure. If it started the 21st century Stitch’n Bitch movement it may be notable for that reason, if not otherwise as a small business. Mccapra (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Before entering the afd I wasn't aware that this article had been through afd previously. After reading through the comments and reviewing the revision history this company certainly did not start the 21st century Stitch n'Bitch movement. According to Wikipedia Stitch 'n Bitch was a term in use since at least WWII. What it did do was start a trademark dispute with established knitting groups who had used the term for years. The UK Telegraph citation makes a mention of the company in the context of the owner's legal actions. It doesn't mention the merits of Sew Fast Sew Easy as a company.

There is also a serious WP:COI with the main editor User:Ggarvin who appears to be a business partner and opened this as a single-purpose account. A lot of talk page and 1st round afd commentary seems to be coming from editors with COI who feel very supportive and grasp at anything that might prop it up. As an example one mentioned that a sewing pattern produced by the company was used in an exhibit at the NY Historical Society. But that doesn't grant the pattern company notability. If "Ajax Horsewhip Company" has a riding crop included in a museum display that alone fails to give Ajax notability.

The main problem here is its failing WP:VERIFY as there are but two other citations - one is a permanent dead link to a list of craft stores and another to a primary source which is the government trademark file. If a company existed for 20 years and had notability it should not be hard to find reliable secondary references that support WP:CORP. This article was created in 2007 so something substantial would have been found by now. Blue Riband► 13:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this article has been deleted a couple of times - the last time was on 18 October 2007 by @DGG:. Perhaps some kind admin who can look at the previously deleted version(s) can see if the comments above relate to the confusion. Toddst1 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Blue Riband wrote: "A web search indicates that Sew Fast Sew Easy was a small neighborhood business that failed". I realize it it had a loyal following among some consumers, nevertheless it ultimately failed. The icing on the cake as it appears to have been created by a single purpose account and we haven't found substantial sources in over a decade. It's time to mercy kill this article.Knox490 (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What was deleted in AfD1 back in 2007 was a much more promotional version of the article; it was replaced with a protected redirect to Stich n' Bitch, and what I deleted was that redirect, which I removed to permit a new article to be written. I moved fin that new article from a userspace draft at [1]--it's in the edit history. I considered the draft of that article acceptable, and said so in the edit summary. There's been a good deal of rather contentious editing since then, mainly about the status and rights to the various terms. I don't think the current version is particularly clear about that , but that's an editing question. That the firm is no longer in existence is not a reason to delete an article: WP is an encycopedia, not a directory of current businesses, and an encycopedia is a permanent record. I consider the sourcing just sufficient to document the material--I think it's quite important to keep the history of such controversies, and it seems to have been prominent in its day. There's an alternative: Elissa K. Meyrich's book, Sew Fast Sew Easy: was published in a new edition as late as 2013, & both it and the previous edition are in several hundred libraries. There should be reviews. (the title of the various catalog records varies--contrary to what's currently in the article, the 2008 publication was not a separate title, but a reprint. . Myrick's book Rip it also mentioned in this article, is a separatep ublication, also in hundreds of librries. Both are by major trade publishers, not specialist hobbist publishers as is often the case with titles like these. We could well have an article on her. If the conclusion is that we shouldn't have this one, please move it to my user space and I'll revise it into one on the author--possibly with some help from someone who knows something about the subject. (WM-NYC has had relevant editathons) and the WIR project should also be interested. I have always supported extensive coverage for fields in which women predominate despite the apparent difficulty in sourcing--it's the better way to redress the balance, rather than try to write on sub-notable people.. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article contains a lot of unsourced material, and if that is deleted (as it should be, and I am happy to do it if other editors agree), the resulting page would be a stub. I think the article should remain up, but marked as a stub, to give editors time to improve it. (I've looked around for more sources, and they are rather thin on the ground, but this could change in the future.) The majority of reliable sources about Sew Fast Sew Easy are related to the Stitch 'n Bitch controversy/lawsuit with Debbie Stoller, which is described in the Stitch 'n Bitch article. I've just added a section to this page that describes the trademark controversy--I would argue that this dispute is an important case for a number of issues that are of current and growing concern about copyright in craft and textile disciplines, most prominently in the work of scholars like Kirsty Roberts (whose work on this issue I have added to the citations) and Janis Jeffries, and which has reemerged this year in the disputes over codes of behavior and politics on ravelry.com. Dilettante Army (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? Good points because if the sewing books put out by the proprietor have gained significant coverage and attention then it may be argued that the author - Elissa Meyrich - has enough notability to merit her own page per WP:AUTHOR. The article as it currently stands is about the store and that's what is lacking verifiable references. (Carolina Herrera is a designer with her own page but her NY boutique store does not.) The recently edited version contains material from the user page of User:Ggarvin who was a partner in the business. The news articles cited either have no links or they are behind a paywall so it is difficult to establish if Sew Fast Sew Easy was featured or just mentioned in passing. Past comments called the timeline unencyclopedic. Regarding codes of behavior and politics within other knitting/sewing groups, see WP:INHERITORG. I'm not unsympathetic to seeing more articles of women entrepreneurs but do we really want to go down the road of compromising Notability standards just for "balance"? Blue Riband► 02:47, 29 August 2019 (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.