Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sew Fast Sew Easy

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 keep. John254 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sew Fast Sew Easy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unable to find any significant external references. Only passing mentions. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into Stitch 'n Bitch. They have a published book as well as significant press coverage, much of which seems to involve their claim to "Stitch 'n Bitch" as a trademark, which attracted international press attention. example article and another example article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fascinating stuff, and while there's the suspicion of some Wikispam mixed in with it let's not delete the good stuff too. Deleted several times already without debate I notice. Agree a merge might be a possibility but that doesn't need to involve AfD, and the resulting redirect should stay. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I agree with Andrewa's observation concerning Wikispam and have great concerns regarding conflict of interest,I see that reliable sources meet notability guidelines. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Sew Fast Sew Easy article, it has received coverage both within the United States, Germany and on CNBC World Business News as a company. There is no reason this article should be merged with the stitch and bitch article. The company has products that are independant of stitch and bitch. Books, patterns, and an online store. All of the articles in question are verifiable. The url within the article goes to the sew fast sew easy website where a copy can be found on the press page, but the article date, newspaper or video coverage dates are provided. I do not see why these sources are considered not verifialbe. Can you please explain?--Ggarvin (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge Per above. Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this has been a long-standing problem--there is apparently a trademark dispute underlying this, and most of those editing this and related articles have strong POV and probably COI.The safe thing to do is keep, and continue to try to edit neutrally. DGG (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (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.