Deletion of Drill commands

Comment: per . There is no problem here that cannot be fixed through editing. V and NOR only allow the deletion of unverifiable content. They do not allow the deletion of verifiable content that merely lacks citations. There are plenty of sources that verify the stuff in this article, such as https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ju09FdXinqYC&pg=PA7#v=onepage this and the other sources that come up on searches for "drill commands", "words of command" and cognate expressions and searches like https://www.google.com/search?q=%22words+of+command%22+ease&tbm=bks this. All you need to do is add the sources that plainly do exist in GBooks etc. I might have more sympathy for this nomination if the article were replete with errors, but none have been identified by the nominator
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: prune vigorously, and cite the remaining core elements of this certainly notable topic. As Andrew D. rightly observes, there are plenty of military manuals that can be cited reliably. I doubt very much whether we should be trying to catalogue all drill commands of all armies (); instead, the history and principles should be brought out. But that is a matter for editing, not AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCAT)