Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OGF

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 of the debate was Keep as a disambiguation. Xoloz 15:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OGF

Unnoteworthy neologism / initialism / "Microsoftism" (according to the cited source). Doesn't appear to qualify for anything speedy, but it should still be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete! Can be fixed into disambig page. I have done so. - splot 03:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for applying the TLA template at least, but isn't it still just a disambig for a TLA that isn't in widespread use, regardless of what it might stand for? —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 04:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because although it purports to be a TLA disambig page, none of the three entries in the list points to a Wikipedia article. ♠DanMS 05:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone replaces this with a TLA disambig that points at WP articles or has redlinks that could be WP articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like someone went and did that. Keep this now-useful disambig. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after deleting the "Microsoftism". Google found 2½ blue links - now added. -- RHaworth 08:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Question: So, was that external link there from the original author? I nowiki'd it while on VfD, at any rate, as I suspect the point of the original author was page rank boosting. If that link was, in fact, the original author's point, let's excise it, eh? Geogre 09:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now a valid TLA. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep perfectly valid TLA.  ALKIVAR™ 11:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as mentioned above. PJM 14:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as disambiguation page Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Trollderella 17:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but I've removed the Microsoft usage, because AFAICT it's a non-notable neologism not in widespread use outside a single company. Of course, anyone who can produce evidence that it's notable can always put it back in... — Haeleth Talk 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Changing vote to keep now that the article has nothing in common with what it started as. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please it is a disambiguation it is useful really Yuckfoo 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Preaky 04:26, 10 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.