Deletion of Peter Hofschröer

Comment: I point out that the subject does not pass rof#C1 on the basis of the GS citations to his work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Fails  and ; I too have a soft spot for historians, but unfortunately he does not apply. The sources are generally either merely poor (Sources # 1,2,10: LinkedIn, Napoleanic Soc., Amazon) or  and only mention him in passing (9 + 10). The only reliable sources the article currently uses  (4 - 8, the newspapers) do not reflect any notability as a historian at all- they are testement to his recent conviction, which is therefore the only thing he is 'notable' for. And therefore he also fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NAUTHOR||WP:PROF||WP:PRIMARY||WP:PERP)

Comment: We have had this article since May 2008, based upon his notability as a historian and author. |Notability is not temporary, so he does not suddenly become non-notable in July 2016, because of his conviction.  Appears to be a COI/PoV nomination - | Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences strikes again
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:LUC)

Comment: I think you can make a reasonable case that the subject is notable. Certainly his work has been the subject of reviews in reliable sources (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/apr/17/featuresreviews.guardianreview23 and some of Chris Troutman's links above). However it is going to be rather difficult to cover him while remaining compliant with  given his conviction for possessing indecent images of children http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14612062.Historian_who_had_36_000_indecent_photos___videos_gets_two_and_a_half_years/ and the large number of people trying to insert poorly sourced content claiming there has been a campaign of harassment against him. Given that his notability is somewhat borderline I think think it's worth trying to do this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)