Talk:Sew Fast Sew Easy

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 26 August 2019, see discussion.
keep, December 8, 2007, see discussion.

Discussion to recreate article

This entire article was written by the staff members of Sew Fast Sew Easy as well as the Stitch N Bitch edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.174.114 (talk • contribs) 19:07, June 21, 2011

This looks very nice - I don't think you'll have any problems getting the main Wikipedia space unprotected so you can put this article there.

I look forward to seeing a few formalized references from the history section - three or four with more specifics like exact date or issue number of the magazine, and page numbers, is in my opinion all the article needs.

My only quibble is that you'll need to remove the Chicago group from the external links section - that group is patently not associated with Sew Fast Sew Easy ([1]). Lyrl^Talk _C 01:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lyri that the article is much improved, and I emphasise that exact citations to the NYTimes articles at least would be very desirable, and so would reference to the other media and exhibit mentions in the article (all preferably as formal references--see WP:CITE). I should then be possible to move most of the magazine names from the text into the references, which would be very highly preferable. I made a number of copy edits to highlight book titles, decrease repetition, and remove the few remaining unsourced claims. While I was at it, I made Lyri's suggested deletion. I only wonder if the trademark dispute should be mentioned or whether it is better to not mention it at all, and just list the stich n' bitch article as a see also. DGG (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have added references and will add more. Please let me know when Sew Fast Sew Easy will be cleared for its own article. I have added the Stitch & Bitch trademark dispute and our Stitch & Bitch Chicago operations. I would like to incorporate video and some additional images about the Sew Fast Sew Easy brand.--Ggarvin 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions, patience and cooperation in getting Sew Fast Sew Easy's content published on wikipedia. We have additions that will be coming in the near future. Thank you Lyrl & DGG for the constructive criticism in making this article a good start. --Ggarvin 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are miscellaneous citations needed on this page. However, all can be found on Sew Fast Sew Easy's press page except for the Manhattan Cable Access video.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.25.81 (talk • contribs)

Stitch and bitch dispute

Referenced information critical of the company as well as information concerning a boycott of Sew Fast/Sew Easy has been removed, and I suspect it will continue to be.Zombiersv (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with Ggarvin that the detail provided by Zonbiersv's edit just duplicated the content at the Stitch 'n Bitch article. However, I do think it would be appropriate to just mention that they are involved in a conflict (possibly just incorporate this into the timeline? 2005 - Company initiates legal dispute with United States knitter's groups over the service mark Stitch and Bitch). How do others feel about this? Lyrl^Talk _C 14:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trademark dispute content is repeated on Debbie Stoller's page, there should probably be something about it here as well, or removed from both. Zombiersv (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sew Fast Sew Easy did not initiate legal disputes with anyone. Sew Fast Sew Easy took legal action to protect its brand from dillusion and then Debbie Stoller took legal action against us. If we are going to be accurrate lets put it all on the table. I would suspect that Zombiersv is either Debbie Stollers staff at Bust or Maryanns team--Ggarvin 14:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sew Fast Sew Easy is involved in a legal dispute and took the first legal action. I'm not following how that isn't "initiating a legal dispute". In the absence of a resolution to that question, saying Sew Fast Sew Easy owns or is taking action to protect the brand violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Wording such as "to further its claim of ownership" can be used that acknowledges Sew Fast Sew Easy's claims but does not report them as fact. Lyrl^Talk _C 03:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company timeline

I've made a rather bold edit by removing the "Company timeline" section from this article. I did this not because it has been the source of so much debate, but because I find it trivial in the extreme. I see no value in the seven-word, unreferenced description supposedly provided by New York Woman, when it was that seam guides were first made (and for what purpose), or that Sew Fast Sew Easy classes were ever listed in MSN's "City Survival Guide". Given the battle reflected in the edit history and on this page, it would appear the only purpose was to further in Wikipedia an argument best left to the courts. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Ggarvin (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)This timeline met several administrators approval earlier because it explained the signifigance of why Sew Fast Sew Easy should have its own article and how it was notable. The design is copied from the approved layout of Black and Decker. I spoke with a friend at black and decker corporate and they suggested I use their layout because it was concise and talked about product implementation and how and when it was made available to the public. The timeline should be included. Our company has 16 years of history in Manhattan. Our contributions to the art and design world are signficant as a stepping stone for students interested in fashion design.[reply]

the books additionally are significant to the article. They show, like any other author's wiki page, that we have published works.--Ggarvin (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, while I recognize the assistance provided in the effort to reintroduce an article this past October, I see no evidence that any administrator approved the timeline, and add that the granting of such approval is not a function of the position. That the design was copied from that of Black and Decker is of no consequence - this is an encyclopedia, not a corporate tool (no pun intended). As stated in my edit summary, the titles featured as "Further reading" did not provide more detail about the subject (a corporation), but were 'how-to' books. I add that they were not published by Sew Fast Sew Easy, as you claim, but by Fireside, St. Martin's and Rodale. Given my concerns over conflict of interest, in particular the "Legal antagonists" section, I've restored my edits. I encourage others to participate in this discussion. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are taken. However, as an encylcopedia article, this article should state why the company is significant enough to be listed. The timeline was the meat of the article offering the reader the significant impact of SFSE in the design community. Sew Fast Sew Easy is an authority in the fashion sewing industry, because of our president's experience and the product line designed by it. This would include the books. Sew Fast Sew Easy, the book, started a trend in sewing book publishing by including sewing patterns with the book.

How can we come to an agreement here. The company has many significant products that have been constantly well received by the press and the public for quality. Those should all be added in this article. If you review the Stitch N Bitch article you will see that products, books, further use and other information to less credible sources are listed. --Ggarvin (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get no argument from me that Sew Fast Sew Easy isn't deserving of an article. My objection was to a timeline which provided little more than a year-by-year account of minor events and trivial notices, both referenced ("Stitch & Bitch magnetic seam guide featured in Craft Magazine.") and unreferenced ("Best of New York lists company as “Tailor Made”.") I think the amount of trivia devalues the company's importance. Your president's experience may have made the company an authority in the fashion sewing industry, the book Sew Fast Sew Easy may have started a trend in sewing book publishing; all that is needed is a report of these claims in a reliable source. I think anything noteworthy can and should be included in the text. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ggarvin is correct, not having references to support assertions of importance/significance is a problem for a Wikipedia article. Not asserting importance/significance is a criteria for speedy deletion (criteria A7).

The timeline was a big improvement over the previous versions of this article, which as you can see from the deletion log were deleted as blatant advertisements (criteria G11). I agree with Victoriagirl's criticism of the timeline, but I think it was better than the current nothing at all. Lacking people to work on improving the article, I'm in favor of adding the timeline back in for now. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I land in the grey centre. It is not so much that I am opposed to a timeline per se, rather that I feel it contains far too much unreferenced trivia. A few observations on the most recent version:

The timeline covers 1991 to 2007, yet there are no entries at all for years 1993, 1994 and 2000.
Of the remaining eleven years, four (1996, 1997, 1999, 2003) contain nothing more than trivia.
Many of the claims contained are unreferenced. There were, when last included, six citation requests. More could be added.

Again, my observation is that the referenced, non-trivial info could be incorporated into the text.Victoriagirl (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Or just add only the referenced bits back in. I just don't feel motivated to work on the article myself, and I think just deleting everything including what was referenced hurt the article more than helped it. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning behind Lyrl's return of the "Company timeline". I've removed what I consider to be trivial items. Others may disagree. Among the sentences deleted is mention of a New York Times article "discussing Sew Fast Sew Easy’s computer fit made-to-measure patterns", but have kept the link (which I moved to "External links"). I think the fact that such an article was published is not exactly noteworthy, but its existence speaks to notability. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content in the timeline supported the opening statement. "Sew Fast Sew Easy is a corporation based in New York City, that is best known for sewing classes, sewing patterns and sewing books. It was founded in 1991 by Elissa K. Meyrich, an instructor at Parsons School of Design and a designer in New York City’s garment district for over 26 years. In 1997, Sew Fast Sew Easy created New York City’s first Stitch & Bitch group and expanded it to their website in 1998.

Brands marketed by Sew Fast/Sew Easy include:

Sew Fast Sew Easy sewing classes, books, and patterns.

Stitch & Bitch and Stitch & Bitch Cafe sewing and knitting products. "

First, all of the articles that are listed support the case that Sew Fast Sew Easy is known for its sewing classes, sewing patterns and sewing books. From the publication of books to the mention of the books, classes and patterns in articles, all of the referenced material is what makes this article notable. Additionally, the "Brands marketed by Sew Fast Sew Easy include:" states its brands and products associated with the brand and the release of items should be listed also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.109.132 (talk • contribs)

I note that my changes to the edit of the "Corporate timeline" has been reverted by 71.247.109.132 (talk · contribs). Assuming in good faith that 71.247.109.132 is a new user, I recommend a reading of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That Sew Fast Sew Easy was once listed by "Best of New York" as “Tailor Made”, or that MSN once listed the company's classes in "a City Survival Guide", does nothing to assert notability. I have argued that the inclusion of this trivial, largely unreferenced material serves to devalue the importance. Awaiting the participation of others in this discussion, I've left 71.247.109.132's changes in place, and where appropriate, have added citation requests. The unexplained changes made by 71.247.109.132 to the edits of others have remained untouched. The only other change made is the deletion of the "Further reading" section. Again, these are 'how-to' books and provide no information on the history of the company not found here. To direct the reader to these titles as "Further reading" is misleading and inappropriate. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia's notability requirements state that company press releases and information located on the company website specifically its press page are listed as secondary sources. Some of the articles just are not available on the web and have been provided to users through their company website.

Second, Sew Fast Sew Easy books further implies the company director is a published author and has contributed to other publications and directs the reader to investigate why the company is known for its books.

Finally, in many other articles on wikipedia there are no references to a lot of things. Why is this article receiving such critical review. Please see - black and decker, martha stewart omnimedia and ladies home journal.

Wikipedia's requirements for notability......A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:

Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.

Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.109.132 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a significant edit in an effort to improve the article and bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Before discussing the changes, I'd like to address 71.247.109.132 (talk · contribs)'s post. I'll begin by clearing up an apparent misconception, found in the first paragraph, that press releases and company websites are to be considered as "secondary sources". In fact, according to the guidelines, they are not to be considered at all. That some of the articles are not available on the web in no way invalidates their status as reliable, verifiable sources.

Addressing the matter of titles described above as "Sew Fast Sew Easy books", it is more than implied that the company director is a published author, it is stated in the timeline. This information is not only repeated under "Further reading", its inclusion in this section is misleading and inappropriate as these books provide the reader with no further information about the company. The presence of the third title, Susan Huxley's Sewing Secrets from the Fashion Industry: Proven Methods to Help You Sew Like the Pros is unexplained. The claim has been made here that the company is known for its books. I'll again point out that Sew Fast Sew Easy is not a publisher.

That there are other Wikipedia articles lacking in references is irrelevant. 71.247.109.132 (talk · contribs), you ask why it is that this article receiving such critical review. This is perhaps best explained by the participants, many of whom are single purpose accounts, some of whom appear to have a transparent conflict of interest. In the interest of openness, I will reveal that my own participation results from my stumbling upon an old version of this article which featured a commercial link to cafepress (which I argued was counter Wikipedia's policy concerning external links). I encourage others to be as open about their participation.

Concerning my most recent edit, I have replaced many the New York Newsday and New York Post articles linked to the Sew Fast Sew Easy site with traditional citations. This was done in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on copyright. In short, the Sew Fast Sew East website provides no indication that it has obtained permission to include these articles. I have restored several citation requests which were deleted without comment. As the source provided did not support the statement "Magnetic seam guides are made to support the Stitch & Bitch Café brand and incorporated into manuals and instructions", the citation request has been restored. The New York Historical Society citation has been restored as the source provided failed to support the claim that Sew Fast Sew Easy patterns where featured in the exhibit. Several other citation requests have been restored as the information provided was incomplete. I have made a few minor changes in line with Wikipedia's manual of style. Finally, for the reasons outlined above, I have again removed the "Further reading" section.Victoriagirl (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sew Fast Sew Easy featured in the NY Historical Society

=I am trying to add the fact that we were in the NY Historical Society. I have PDFs from the exhibit, pictures which showcase our pattern line and other pictures that support the evidence. What is need for validity. This was not a press writeup but all of the information is made by the NY Historical Society and not edited in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.64.180 (talk • contribs)

151.202.64.180 (talk · contribs), as you've written written that you've been trying add mention of Sew Fast Sew Easy patterns being featured a NY Historical Society exhibition (but have met with some objections), I'm assuming that you and Ggarvin (talk · contribs) are one and the same. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Although I would argue that the inclusion of the Sew Fast Sew Easy patterns is really quite trivial - as is much in the timeline (a charge I've made before) - my objection rests on the support material. Simply put, I do not see how a previously unpublished photograph of a number of sewing related products, featuring no indication as to date or place, containing no sign of connection with the NY Historical Society, credited to an employee of Sew Fast Sew Easy, in any way meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Moreover, I suggest that its use also runs counter to policies concerning original research and that the act of its inclusion flies in the face of the conflict of interest behavioral guideline. I note that since my last edit - the first in over two months - the image has been returned[2], along with two more documents[3] intended to support the statement that Sew Fast Sew Easy sewing patterns and online classes were "featured in NY Historical Society". The first, which appears to be a sewing pattern, contains no such information. Described in the article as an "EXHIBITION HANDOUT", it contains no indication that this is so, nor does the name "NY Historical Society" appear. The second, which appears to be a handbill for an exhibition held by the New-York Historical Society, contains no mention of Sew Fast Sew Easy. Obviously, neither can be used to support the statement.

Now, for my personal opinion. I think it likely that packages of patterns for Sew Fast Sew Easy were indeed displayed at an exhibition held by the New-York Historical Society. But this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of personal opinions and hunches. And, again, is this not the most trivial of accomplishments? Victoriagirl (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification. I will research to see if I am able to get the complete handout from the event. I believe that the inclusion of this information on the company is again a display of Sew Fast Sew Easy's contribution to changing the face of the sewing industry. This company is specifically geared to using technology to advance the face of the industry and make things easy for fashion sewing. As the first company to offer custom-computer fit sewing patterns, online video learning and its own sewing pattern line, the later two are the reason we were featured in the exhibit.--151.202.64.180 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization

It's usually discouraged add categories to an article that are closely related (parent/daughter) to the article's current categories. When possible, it is also preferred to use a broader parent category instead of numerous daughter categories. For example, category:knitting, category:embroidery, and category:crochet are all immediate daughters of category:needlework. Instead of having three daughter categories (knitting, embroidery, crochet), it would be better to have just the one parent category (needlework). category:needlework and category:sewing are both immediate daughters of category:textile arts. So inclusion in textile arts makes the other four categories redundant.

Also, categories like "books" and "trademarks" are intended for articles about books and trademarks. Not articles about people who write books (that's category:writers) and not articles about companies that own trademarks (that would be part of category:companies). Sew Fast Sew Easy is about a company owned by someone who is also a writer, which seems like too distant a connection to be a basis for categorization.

I hope this explains my reversion of the recent category additions. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor's deletions

An IP editor 65.51.174.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made several deletions and other changes to the article with the following comment:

made changes to the article based on fact. Some of the references which were not supported have been removed

I restored the company logo, and I am inclined to restore much of the other referenced material that was deleted, but I would be grateful for the opinions of other editors. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a cleanup?

I visited the SWSE article page today in the hopes that it would explain the Sew Fast, Sew Easy/Stitch and Bitch Café kerfuffle to a friend and I was surprised that this page didn't have any information about that. I knit and the only reason I know about SFSE is that they sued Debbie Stoller and did takedowns for many small, local stitch and bitches (informal knitting meetups), who had to change their names or disappear. Also, a lot of the links posted here don't link to anything any more. Specifically, the Time Out New York article that supposedly shows that SFSE first gathered together an SnB in 1997 links to an article on craft beers. I did track down the link to the Telegraph article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1510240/Its-getting-bitchy-in-knitting-circles.html

I feel like I don't know enough about SFSE to really add anything to their page, especially since I only know about them for negative reasons. Could someone else clean up this article? It sounds like the guy who was responsible for most of the edits has left the company and the store has closed, so now would be a good time for someone with a neutral viewpoint to revisit this page.

Thank you!

Removed forum url

I removed the Stitch & Bitch Cafe forum link (http://www.stitchandbitchcafe.com) because it is a dead link (as of August 2019). Digging through Archive.org reveals that the url was always a redirect, to either http://www.sewfastseweasy.com/stitch_and_bitch/index.php (although this link is still live, it is usurped and points to an unrelated beauty site) or http://stitchandbitchcafe.sewfastseweasy.com/ (currently dead). Archived versions of both of these URLs point to the knitting forum. I felt that a non-up-to-date/long-dead forum link was not useful in the context of this article, but thought I should document it here in case someone else feels that an archived copy of the link should be added back.

- Heddles (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is self-contradictory on founding date

In various places, the article claims that SFSE was founded in 1991 and that it was founded in 1993. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]