Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kevin Hurst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Kevin Hurst

Blatant promotion. He is a lawyer in Dallas, and did take part in the case stated, but he inflates its importance. The remainder is trivial. I tried to edit to significant only, but he keeps reverting the page. In the end he's just another lawyer with a high opinion of himself, so instead of an edit war I decided to vfd Outlander 15:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true. I am not Michael Kevin Hurst, but Outlander apparently bears a grudge against the guy. The remainder is not trivial, per Wikipedia's guidelines. In the end Outlander is just another random troll on the internet (or an arrogant person who lives in his own world) who gets his only joy in life by deleting the content that others work hard to create. DevilYouKnow

DevilYouKnow, please refrain from personal attacks. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, I just suspect Outlanderssc is a sophisticated Internet troll. DevilYouKnow 17:46, August 11, 2005
That is disputable, and you do not help your case by going on the offensive. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm no troll. look at my edit list. I should also note that numerous attempts have been made to edit this article to an encyclopedic format, but DevilYouKnow simply re-writes it to the original text. Please check the page history. For my money, it's best we just be rid of him.--Outlander 18:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentOutlander didn't rewrite anything to an encyclopedic format or otherwise, he just deleted content. There is a distinction. When asked to explain himself Outlander spitefully put the article into VFD. --Devilyouknow 18:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Devilyouknow, this is the second time in this discussion I have asked you to refrain from making personal attacks. To characterize the deletion nomination as "spiteful", whether true or not, is a personal attack. Please do not make further attacks on other editors. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP, this article appears to pretain to a notable enough individual. Please add citations however for verification. Could also stand some expansion. Gateman1997 17:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with citations as above or rewrite for NPOV (e.g. case list instead of "groundbreaking legal voodoo") Lomn 17:32:22, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP the article contains content suitable for Wikipedia.DevilYouKnow 17:46, August 11, 2005
  • INACCURATE - The author of the brief in T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc. was Bruce C. Morris, not Michael Kevin Hurst. Ref. [1] 146.145.24.131
  • RESPONSE - Remember there are attorneys on both sides of a case. Mr. Morris was opposite Mr. Hurst. From 965 S.W.2d 20:
 Michael K. Hurst, Marcie Lande Romick, Dallas, for Appellants.
 William C. Norvell, Scott D. Marrs, Bruce Charles Morris, Houston, for Appellee. --Devilyouknow
    • Rebuttal But if Mr. Morris filed the successful brief, as it says in [2], and he was opposite Mt. Hurst, wouldn't that mean Mr. Hurst lost? (Unsigned comment by 146.145.24.131 (talk · contribs))
    • response Please read the Court's opinion for yourself and determine the winner. It should be in any law library. --Devilyouknow 14:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please expand Yuckfoo 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete These cases aren't important. Neither is this guy. What difference have these cases made on the American legal system? JDoorjam 19:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This shouldn't even warrant discussion. Dottore So 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: google test "Michael K. Hurst" received 94 hits, quick glance of first 10 hits (most relevant) show membership in different associations, but no notable information that would qualify him as encyclopedic. Good general estimate for encyclopedic-ness is whether he's been mentioned in a major news publication, which doesn't appear to be the case -- Bubbachuck 20:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per JDoorjam and Bubbachuck. feydey 22:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bubbachuck. ESkog 23:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn lawyer. --Etacar11 23:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete utterly nn and vanity project (Unsigned vote by 64.19.134.3 (talk · contribs))
  • Absolutely KEEP Noteworthy content. If we all vote to keep Bob Novak saying a dirty word on CNN, then this page clearly qualifies as noteworthy. --BrownHornet21 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 03:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. I would say "no assertion of notablity", speedy. Sdedeo 07:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Merely putting the word "notable" in an article is not enough to assert notability. Tonywalton 11:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment an overview of T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc. is available at [3] for those who wish to determine if it is noteworthy. (Unsigned comment by 146.145.24.131 (talk · contribs))
    • NOTE 146.145.24.131 is a sock puppet for Outlander - compare their edit pages. (Unsigned comment by User:DevilYouKnow)
      • Comment It's not a sock puppet if you don't vote or express an opinion. I just put up a link anyone can find on Google, to save the editors a few moments of their time. Completely NPOV ---Outlander 22:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable and vanity. Lack of google hits, lack of impact on the legal system. Being a lawyer is not sufficient. Themindset 22:32, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.