First step is to get the English right, in my opinion. The interjection is actually the verb used in the imperative mood. So we need two verb senses, and zero interjective ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Rfd-redundant: Both interjections. They are redundant to both verbs, simply the imperative of the verb. Compare Talk:halt where it was decided to delete the interjection as it was simply the imperative form of the verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete the interjections as redundant to the verbs and SOPs.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated the verbs also. They are just "go for" (try to attain) + "it" or "go for" (undertake) + "it".—msh210℠ (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The verb idiom is not without support at go for it at OneLook Dictionary Search, notably RHU. DCDuringTALK 16:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The interjection section of this entry was deleted following the discussion which has now been archived to the talk page, but the verb section, which was tagged towards the end of that RFD, was never discussed. - -sche(discuss) 09:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems okay to me. DAVilla 04:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus.--Jusjih (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)