Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons Training

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Training

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been completely unreferenced for a couple of years, a target for vandalism, and entirely comprised of original research. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 10:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, being a vandalism target is not a reason to delete. The OR and the lack of sourcing are an issue but they can be overcome. The poem is a common part of the Australian high school curriculum in most states and as such there will be many, many sources available should someone care to look. A simple google search under Weapons Training Bruce Dawe shows how ubiquitous it is in Australian classrooms. Needs fixing, yes. Needs deleting, no. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the coverage at Google Books. Clearly notable subject. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above - there appears to be sufficient coverage to warrant an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:01, 27 May 2010 (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.