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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Armed Forces of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While there is nothing wrong with the subject, this article seems unsalvageable.

1. Nearly every single sentence is ungrammatical. 2. Most of the article amounts to blatant propaganda.

This is really the worst serious article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and I don't see how it could be salvaged. Cerberus™ (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two possible ways to salvage this would be to edit the article or to revert to an earlier version. Deletion is not required. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not well-written but parts do make sense, the topic is notable, and somebody may be able to get something sensible out of the existing material or past revisions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No way can we justify deleting the entire article on a national military given the importance of the topic. If the content is really unsalvageable, chop it back to a stub and then re-expand it. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, it needs a rewrite, but it is clearly notable enough under any standards for an article, so should not be brought to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2012 (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.