![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
TheRedPenOfDoom (
talk ·
contribs) on 12 March 2012 with the comment: that "local boy is performing", fails WP:N significant coverage in third party sources |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He was also in the one off comedy show http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007znpj. Would that be worth a mention? Daggsy ( talk) 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Whilst the article may still lack references and thus appear to fail WP:N, the subject appears to qualify under WP:ENT so I vote keep. KenBailey ( talk) 08:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if someone could enter his birth date. It does not seem to be included in the article. Technut ( talk) 18:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how what he said regarding Mock the week is a defence of UKIP. More that it is a criticism of comedians for thinking they are clever for insulting UKIP. Nothing he's said that I have seen, or is referenced, suggests that he supports UKIP in any way. How about "UKIP controversy" or similar as a title? -- Davini994 ( talk) 12:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Somebody just before my edits deleted any mention of that controversial Facebook post. Given that this person made nine edits in quick succession, and those edits are their only edits ever, and that one of those edits was literally "he's got a DVD out", I have to presume that this person is somehow connected to the subject. But anyway. In my opinion, the FB post and the ensuing drama definitely passes notability requirements given the storm it sparked in comedy circles - it was reported in a variety of national newspapers, and the first time I'd ever heard of the bloke was in reference to it. I know that normally political views would be excessive/unnecessary detail on an article like this - e.g. I think the mention of 'right-wing' that used to be in the intro was totally superfluous - but this case is an exception. Do people agree? Massivefranklin ( talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What utter tosh Andy. He was already known nationally prior to any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.120.107 ( talk) 15:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You should probably include a section about how his series of racist tweets has led to many venues cancelling his tour dates. It's not good enough just to lock the article.
https://twitter.com/HangerFarmArts/status/1414564078614421508
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1414544244832972807
https://twitter.com/scallywagcomedy/status/1414557612792745988 https://twitter.com/worcester_live/status/1414557319644471296 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:2100:6B01:C88:79E1:5FCE:67DD ( talk • contribs)
I do understand the BLP policy, but at the same time, I find it bizarre that these things only become acceptable to cover once a newspaper has collated the 5-6 tweets into an article. Nevertheless the revisions to the article as they stand at time of writing make and sufficiently contextualise the point.
Comedy news, at least, is covering it now: https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2021/07/12/48803/andrew_lawrence_is_cancelled_over_racist_tweets
It's been covered by numerous outlets now, including Indy100. Can I suggest that in the future "Havitush" is less quick to destructively delete what is being written about a fast moving story, and instead tries to constructively edit and contribute.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “subtweet” to “quoted tweet” Pgo1980 ( talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Lawrence has been editing this page with an unregistered account. 2A00:23C8:8E87:6E00:D856:D25C:DE76:11F5 ( talk) 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
TheRedPenOfDoom (
talk ·
contribs) on 12 March 2012 with the comment: that "local boy is performing", fails WP:N significant coverage in third party sources |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He was also in the one off comedy show http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007znpj. Would that be worth a mention? Daggsy ( talk) 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Whilst the article may still lack references and thus appear to fail WP:N, the subject appears to qualify under WP:ENT so I vote keep. KenBailey ( talk) 08:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if someone could enter his birth date. It does not seem to be included in the article. Technut ( talk) 18:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how what he said regarding Mock the week is a defence of UKIP. More that it is a criticism of comedians for thinking they are clever for insulting UKIP. Nothing he's said that I have seen, or is referenced, suggests that he supports UKIP in any way. How about "UKIP controversy" or similar as a title? -- Davini994 ( talk) 12:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Somebody just before my edits deleted any mention of that controversial Facebook post. Given that this person made nine edits in quick succession, and those edits are their only edits ever, and that one of those edits was literally "he's got a DVD out", I have to presume that this person is somehow connected to the subject. But anyway. In my opinion, the FB post and the ensuing drama definitely passes notability requirements given the storm it sparked in comedy circles - it was reported in a variety of national newspapers, and the first time I'd ever heard of the bloke was in reference to it. I know that normally political views would be excessive/unnecessary detail on an article like this - e.g. I think the mention of 'right-wing' that used to be in the intro was totally superfluous - but this case is an exception. Do people agree? Massivefranklin ( talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What utter tosh Andy. He was already known nationally prior to any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.120.107 ( talk) 15:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You should probably include a section about how his series of racist tweets has led to many venues cancelling his tour dates. It's not good enough just to lock the article.
https://twitter.com/HangerFarmArts/status/1414564078614421508
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1414544244832972807
https://twitter.com/scallywagcomedy/status/1414557612792745988 https://twitter.com/worcester_live/status/1414557319644471296 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:2100:6B01:C88:79E1:5FCE:67DD ( talk • contribs)
I do understand the BLP policy, but at the same time, I find it bizarre that these things only become acceptable to cover once a newspaper has collated the 5-6 tweets into an article. Nevertheless the revisions to the article as they stand at time of writing make and sufficiently contextualise the point.
Comedy news, at least, is covering it now: https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2021/07/12/48803/andrew_lawrence_is_cancelled_over_racist_tweets
It's been covered by numerous outlets now, including Indy100. Can I suggest that in the future "Havitush" is less quick to destructively delete what is being written about a fast moving story, and instead tries to constructively edit and contribute.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “subtweet” to “quoted tweet” Pgo1980 ( talk) 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Andrew Lawrence has been editing this page with an unregistered account. 2A00:23C8:8E87:6E00:D856:D25C:DE76:11F5 ( talk) 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)