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.
Redirect to OMG. It's the same meaning, just without the four-letter curse in the middle. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. All this is, of course, is a variation of OMG, used by some people who think that it makes them look non-conformist. Not notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep soft redirect. Until this morning, minutes before this nomination, the article was a soft redirect to the Wiktionary version. This is not really even the proper venue for this discussion, as soft redirects are supposed to be subject to TFD RFD, not AFD, since they are functionally much more redirects than articles. I've restored the soft redirect, since the article had been a soft redirect for many months, and a dictionary definition article for minutes, before this debate started. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TFD? Why? Stifle (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess. The redirect to OMG is tempting, but a redirect to a dab seems silly (do we add OMFG to the dab?). Another alternative would be to turn it into a dab-- there is Official Meeting Facilities Guide at http://www.omfg.com/ and the Ohio Milling & Farming Group at http://www.omfg.org/. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as soft redirect per TexasAndroid comment below. Changing it to a dab would, of course, have the same effect, but I doubt either of the orgs that bear the initials will ever merit an article. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A few more arguments for keeping this, and keeping it as a WP:Soft redirect. These internet slang terms get continuously recreated as dic defs. Deleting this is not going to prevent that. So deleting this will soon result in the article needing to be salted, which is IMHO a much worse situation that the current. Currently it is watched, and dic defs are generally reverted within hours at worst. And the soft redirect also serves to direct those who search for the term (and there are many) to the proper place for it, on Wiktionary. Without the soft redirect, we are left with a hole that will be repeatedly filled by well-meaning editors until the hole gets WP:SALTed. This is what soft redirects are for, and this is where they are at their most useful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this survives the deletion, redirect vs soft redirect is more of a debate for the talk page of OMFG. For now I'll just say that I generally do not object to local redirects replacing external soft redirects if a suitable local target can be found. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good link there. I had forgotten how much text I typed out on that old debate. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to OMG in Wiktionary. Whether this is the right venue or not, at least a consensus is getting established that this may not be the best place for this. MuZemike (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect - redirect to wiktionary. It's a dicdef, but it might as well soft redir to the wiktionary article... DavidWS(contribs) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OMFG dicdef (OMG != OMFG). WikiScrubber (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2008 (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.