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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARVN rucksack (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)

No coverage in reliable sources found with a Google search. The article has been unreferenced since April 2007. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial and no RS citing. It could be given a mention in passing on an article as to South Vietnam military equipment, but even there should have an RS cite for it if done. Kierzek (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-- an unreferenced essay and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2016 (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.