Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All on Me


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

All on Me

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neither entry has a page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep MOS:DABMENTION. Peter James (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep MOS:DABMENTION. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep MOS:DABMENTION. The Bushranger One ping only 00:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is obvious, since it is allowed by MOS. But to add a little; the nomination is in good faith only that the nom didn't know MOS:DABMENTION exist or they forgot. I made this mistake too before I know. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep MOS:DABMENTION. JE98 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep MOS:DABMENTION. Sro23 (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 3 valid entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Plus no benefit at all to readers to delete this. Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2017 (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.