Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetic License

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic License[edit]

Delete and redirect to Artistic licence (per Sjakkalle suggestion). This is an interesting and fun license however it doesn't appear to be notable in itself [1] and no notable softwares seem to be using it either: [2]. So basically I think it fails WP:N. Laurent (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (talk page comments disagreed, but provided no useful information) Tedickey (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete joke-y license, apparently not used on anything of significance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SNOW and fails WP:N. This article will not survive this afd. The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete used on nothing of significance. Genius 101^Guestbook 15:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind, and redirect to Artistic licence as a reasonable search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.