Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2026. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Overall: What the actual... article is new enough, long enough. Hook fact is interesting, cited. Copyvio tool finds nothing but direct quotes. Videos in article are not included here, which is probably for the best. Looks good to go. —Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and Crisco 1492: I am sorry, but I do not see how this could possibly be a suitable article to put on the main page of Wikipedia. The subject of this is a show "presented" by someone who was a minor at the time and did not have the ability to make independent decisions about his participation in this atrocious public access TV program. I have no idea what kind of adult he turned into (if he is one, although he almost certainly is by now), but having his mother's and grandfather's racism platformed in his name, when he was not of age to consent to what he was doing, on the front page of the world's most important website just will not do. Per WP:BLPMINOR, coverage of minors must be done so that it is even less contentious than would be acceptable for a competent adult or not contentious at all. Do so not just by adding sources but by toning down the content in a way that remains consistent with sourcing. This article relies on mostly bloggy, low-quality sources for an article that highlights extremely negative information on someone who was a minor at the time. In that spirit, I don't see how this gets to mainpage in the first place per WP:DYKBLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. My feeling is this should be rejected and the article deleted; what's the BLP-compliant reason it should stay and/or run on DYK? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with your assessment of the page. The page doesn't make any contentious claims about Andrew himself and instead focuses entirely on the content of the show. Nothing is actually said about Andrew himself that isn't easily verifiable and objectively true (for example, He frequently invokes references to the mainstream popular culture of the time to create analogies). Participating in a racist show is certainly regrettable but it isn't illegal, and it isn't something so unusual or harmful that it should not be covered on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are may child actors that grow up to regret the roles they took when they were below the age of majority (Jake Lloyd famously comes to mind), but we are allowed to cover them in objective manners. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Jake Lloyd appearing in the Phantom Menace is quite different than a minor who is basically a private citizen appearing in a local public-access TV show. And yes, being the host of a KKK TV show as a child is absolutely something unusual and harmful to have associated with one's name, particularly if, as an adult, he may no longer espouse those views, who knows. People change as they grow up and it would be particularly bad to revive an albatross around someone's public reputation because of vile things they did or said when they were too young to reasonably consent to doing them. A child appearing on public-access TV is WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and as a result Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
A more in-depth review of sources leads me to believe this should be rejected. Of the seven sources in the article, two (Dangerous Minds, which per its footer is part of WP:FAROUT, and WP:HUFFPOCON, see contributor bio) are generally unreliable. Three (WP:JEZEBEL, WP:VICE, an unbylined WP:DAILYDOT piece) are flagged as "yellow" due to no consensus about their reliability, with advice that Jezebel (used for the hook fact) generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons. The Rooster source is a two-paragraph summary of the video, and the source does not appear reliable (it looks like a WP:CHURNALISM outfit). PopMatters may be reliable but the article is unbylined. Altogether, this is not sufficient reliable sourcing for DYK. Combined with the WP:DYKBLP issues present and discussed above, I believe the obstacles to this nomination reaching the main page are insurmountable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=icon}
What the actual... article is new enough, long enough. Hook fact is interesting, cited. Copyvio tool finds nothing but direct quotes. Videos in article are not included here, which is probably for the best. Looks good to go. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and Crisco 1492: I am sorry, but I do not see how this could possibly be a suitable article to put on the main page of Wikipedia. The subject of this is a show "presented" by someone who was a minor at the time and did not have the ability to make independent decisions about his participation in this atrocious public access TV program. I have no idea what kind of adult he turned into (if he is one, although he almost certainly is by now), but having his mother's and grandfather's racism platformed in his name, when he was not of age to consent to what he was doing, on the front page of the world's most important website just will not do. Per WP:BLPMINOR, coverage of minors must be done 
A more in-depth review of sources leads me to believe this should be rejected. Of the seven sources in the article, two (Dangerous Minds, which per its footer is part of WP:FAROUT, and WP:HUFFPOCON, see contributor bio) are generally unreliable. Three (WP:JEZEBEL, WP:VICE, an unbylined WP:DAILYDOT piece) are flagged as "yellow" due to no consensus about their reliability, with advice that Jezebel (used for the hook fact) 
