Deletion of Tank monument

Comment: Our  explains the issue "''One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.''".  That's what we have here - a short stub.  I found it easy to expand and have made a start.  See 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: while we would probably need something more substantive by way of sources, http://onkaparingacity.com/custom/files/docs/council_agenda_attachment_81_proposed_leopard_main_battle_tank_at_gemmel_tassie_reserve_6_july_2010.pdf this document explains what they are and how they come to be. We would have to be careful what we conclude from a document that is effectively a |primary source but the aim of posting here was more to give some context to the discussion. In Australia we seem to refer to them as ''Tank memorials'' so if the article is kept then perhaps Tank memorial could be redirected there too. I wouldn't strongly object to a merge to War memorial#Types but I think the type of memorial is worth explaining in its own right
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: The article can certainly be expanded with verified examples (I have added a couple myself) so I would favour keeping it. However, I understand the point that no one has found substantial coverage of the ''topic''. Now, I feel that encyclopedias are here to expand our minds and not constrict them so I have no sympathy at all with a "delete" of pertinent, referenced, curated information. On the other hand, it is not good to have a plethora of snippity articles so a merge may indeed be attractive. My difficulty in this case is practical. Merging with war memorial would leave that article unbalanced; merging with tank I can't see working at all; merging with gate guardian would be absolutely fine except this article does not yet have an example! (Though Fort Knox could help out).  is a guideline and only says what is presumed notable and not what is required by policy for an article's existence. In this case I think it best to allow the article to continue
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)