User talk:Kurweb

Lazy mule
I have added a "" template to the article Lazy mule, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Contributions are welcome, but articles may be deleted if they don't assert notability and aren't backed up by references from reliable sources. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: deleted article
A new shot was created in Seattle, now more than 20 bars carry it. Great! It seems like an interesting drink and I have nothing against it. Still, Wikipedia is not a venue for sharing new drink recipes, nor is it a simple repository of pop culture (despite appearances). It would be great if the New York Times wrote about the shooter, but that supposition eschews the basis for deletion - this is simply not a notable drink. Take the Martini (cocktail), for instance. That drink was subject to praise by famous authors, fictional spies, whole books being written on it, numerous derivative drinks, and near ubiquitous appearance in bars across the world. In that instance, there was a good basis for creating an encyclopedic article. The same simply cannot be said of the Lazy Mule (and hey, I like Tequila shooters!). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)