Talk:Harry Sieben Sr.

Untitled
, this has been kept, thanks for looking for sources. , I do think this was a premature close. There were 5 people for delete and 5 for keep - so clearly no consensus - and your close was based on no one having disproved SoWhy's research - but SoWhy had only put up their comment a few hours previously, the original people commenting are unlikely to have had time to look it over. I had seen these sources and personally didn't feel it crossed the threshold. If SoWhy's comment had been up for a while with no direct response, I could understand the close.Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Your assessment of the close is probably correct, I assume J947 just didn't see the time of the comments. But since the article is now kept, I'll try to help it stay that way. I'm currently a bit busy IRL but I will definitely revisit this within a few days. Regards  So Why  21:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, check now, I cleaned it up and added some sources that were relatively easy to find. If I saw correctly, the name is not "Harry S. Sieben" but "Harry A. Sieben" and there was some mixup with his father who had the same name. Hopefully, I fixed that too. I think WP:BASIC is now established, considering he was worth reporting on continuously at least from 1951 to 1979. Ping me if you think something needs more sourcing. Regards  So Why  13:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)