Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hofschröer


 * 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter Hofschröer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Request for deletion at WP:BLPN here Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy per WP:REALPROBLEM.

I attended edit-a-thons where we'd get potential new editors. These wannabe-Hollywood types, when they weren't name-dropping who they worked with or talked to, tried to convince me to help them "have an article on Wikipedia" for ego and promotional purposes. With only one exception I refused them and I explained that they don't want Wikipedia to have an article about them for exactly this situation. Notability is not temporary and you can't turn around and ask us to delete the article about you because it doesn't read the way you want it to. Too bad for Mr. Hofschröer and his apparent bad behavior. My undergrad is in history and I have a soft spot for historians.

The subject is notable under WP:PROF as seen here, here, here, and here. All of those sources are academic work and nothing of the BLP nature so we ought not just delete it. Sadly, the current article doesn't reflect that and I'm a proponent of WP:REALPROBLEM. I'll cut Hofschröer a break and ask the closing admin to move this into my userspace and salt the mainspace entry until time goes by and I can write a fair and well-written article. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes GNG. A deletion request by a friend / acquantance / colleague of the subject doesn't cut it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I point out that the subject does not pass WP:Prof on the basis of the GS citations to his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep While I would prefer it removed due to the problems involved, he easily passes GNG on his books alone. Unfortunately his less than academic antics mean the popular press thats accessible is weighted towards negative actions. This however is not a reason by itself to delete. Currently the article is fair in accordance with the sources available, so userfying until more time has passed just seems like an excuse to get it out of sight until it can be reinserted with a more laudatory tone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG. any problem raised can be fixed but the problem itself is not a reason for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - 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. - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I lean to delete because (a) this person genuinely is only marginally notable (and that mainly for being something of a thug) and (b) it's more trouble than it's worth. I have sympathy to those who are impatient with a person who used Wikipedia for self-promotion only to demand deletion when the hens come home to roost, but equally we should show some class and allow people to exit with at least some dignity. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF; 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 WP:PRIMARY 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 WP:PERP. Muffled  Pocketed  14:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I honestly want to keep, simply because I find the story behind this guy interesting, but per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's argument, I must agree. There simply aren't any reliable sources that make the subject notable enough to merit an article of his own, all scholarly debate aside. R. A. S immons Talk 00:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (the Talk Page) as it is being abused by Tirailleur to push his own particular agenda, including libellous claims against others (myself), an agenda he is also pushing on an external website. He does seem to be a little too obsessed. The Article page is worthy of retention, as the subject has produced a large quantity of material about the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars, so it is a reference point for anyone interested in that subject and the background to the more contentious issues related specifically to the battle of Waterloo. His more recent activities should just be left as mere statements of fact from the media - anyone going for major rants about them is really trying to exploit the current climate in the UK about these matters to push an agenda about a battle, which took place 200 years ago. DaveHMBA (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete -- The books look low level ones for fans. He is explicitly an amateur historian.  I get the feeling that there are some COATHANGER issues here too.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Hofschroer is notably mainly for being a convicted paedophile. As a historian, he is mainly known for making a nuisance of himself by libelling historian who debunk his books, usually for abuse and misrepresentation of sources material. Most importantly, though, the page about him is being repeatedly defaced by vandals who use it to repeat his conspiracy theories and the smears against the police, his family and the social services that the judge at his criminal trial dismissed. Left like that it brings Wikipedia into severe disrepute. Tirailleur (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete 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. and some of Chris Troutman's links above). However it is going to be rather difficult to cover him while remaining compliant with WP:BLP given his conviction for possessing indecent images of children  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.  Hut 8.5  13:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.