Talk:Louis Conradt

Afd

If you think I shouldnt take this to deletion please give your reasons here, SqueakBox 05:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the guidelines are posted at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability To quote from the nutshell:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Louis Conradt is dead, so virtually all of the coverage given to him is secondary and independent of him. His death has been covered by esteemed journalistic sources as the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Esquire, and numerous regional Texas papers. He is significant, as his death has launched a $105 million lawsuit against NBC, a major news corporation. Also, the arm of another major news copration, ABC News, is investigating NBC's handling of the Conradt incident. Conradt is a key milestone in an extremely popular TV show, which itself is a spinoff of another significant news show (Dateline) What else do you need? Fargobottom 05:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note, is your question related to the Von Erck article or the Conradt article? I'm confused by your note in your apparent deletion of the Von Erck article. I'll start a discussion thread there.Fargobottom 05:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, SqueakBox 05:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course the page should be deleted... it shows the abusive and unethical methods of Dateline and PJ... and we can't have that, now, can we? People may read true articles about true events and make their own conclusions! Gasp! The Travesty!!! • VigilancePrime • • • 20:34 (UTC) 19 Mar '08

Well I don't think so any more, perhaps I had underestimated his notability in the US, but actually IMO this article reflects PJ and NBC Dateline in a positive light, its the chap who gets seen in a rather negative light, and perhaps it can't be easy for his family to have this article here. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. I think the article reflects Dateline and PJ and the chap. Positive, negative, that's for the reader to decide. That's a really neat thing I noticed about this article, it's pretty neutral and, after I fixed some of the linkings and inlines, pretty well referenced. It does rely a bit on the Esquire Magazine news story a little heavily and could use some additional sources (hence the Refimprove tag), but overall not too shabby, eh? • VigilancePrime • • • 01:59 (UTC) 20 Mar '08

Terribly Written

This article is terribly written, and seems to assume prior knowledge of the "to catch a predator" incident. I just learned about the incident, and after reading this article it still isn't clear to me what went on, or why this man committed suicide. Could someone who knows about the incident touch this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.57.35 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree - I just read it without any prior knowledge and I have no idea what this guy did or didn't do and the events surrounding it. This article is poorly written. 64.53.37.3 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Esquire article

Great find whoever added that, recent piece and all. Tyciol (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a little no to the article? It seems to be a sensationalist and inaccurate attack, but let us see. 2A00:23C5:E097:5D00:A591:CE24:BC5A:BF73 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrections

The esquire article seems to be the most comprehensive account of the scenario mentions only one laptop and no findings of child pornography after a search of the hard drive. The source listed for this information seems to be from 2007, while the esquire article is from 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.130.172 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Source Phrasing

While the article states that all the devices found in Conradt's house contained child pornography, the source for that statement seems to imply that while ALL the devices did contain pornography, only SOME of the devices contained child pornography. I have changed the article accordingly, but if someone can clarify, please do. Pigmandelux 06:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis Conradt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809102536/http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/20/61856.aspx to http://insidedateline.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/20/61856.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did the DA’s office block the investigation?

Were they concerned about the methods of the private investigators, or were they concerned with protecting one of their own? Any follow up investigating this point?2A00:23C5:E097:5D00:A591:CE24:BC5A:BF73 (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)