This article was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Old West / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

This article contains a translation of Zulo de trampero from es.wikipedia.

--Mcapdevila (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns raised about the language and structure are noted, but they do not justify deletion under the core policy of Notability (WP:N). The subject matter—Trapper's Cache—is a specific, verifiable historical and geographical concept within the context of the American fur trade.

I submit the following arguments against deletion:

1. Addressing Notability (WP:N): The concept of a "Trapper's Cache" is a distinct historical and logistical element of the North American fur trade, a topic of significant historical study. It is more than a dictionary definition; it is a specialized historical concept and geographical feature (a permanent or semi-permanent storage location) critical to the functioning of the trade routes. The article draws on established historical texts and geographical sources, which is the benchmark for notability.
2. Addressing "Vague Personal Essay": The article’s intent is descriptive and historical, not essayistic. Any phrasing that currently reads as opinion can be easily edited to conform to a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and encyclopedic tone. Stylistic and tone issues are inherently fixable (WP:FIXABLE) and are not a valid reason for deletion if the subject itself is notable.
3. Addressing the Language Critique (e.g., 'just gravy'): The comment on the "peculiar command of English" points to a need for copyediting (WP:GOCE). I acknowledge that some phrasing may be non-standard, but this is a simple matter of editing the prose, not deleting the subject. I welcome collaboration with other editors to refine the language, ensuring the article meets Wikipedia's style standards while retaining the verifiable historical facts.

Conclusion: The subject is historically verifiable and notable within the context of the fur trade and Western US history. The concerns raised are entirely about style and prose, which can be easily rectified through the normal editing process. Please move the nomination to a Keep and allow other editors to collaboratively improve the article.

Mcapdevila (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trapper’s caches are no more independently notable than trapper’s shovels. Just because a subject is notable does not mean its components are equally so. Qwirkle (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to my teacher Bob Bemer, in the 70's from HIS, Phoenix, Az, this concept gave origine to the term computer's cache, this fact gives more importannce than trapper’s shovels.

The article in question is a direct and faithful translation of the existing versions in Catalan and Spanish, which are published in the respective Wikipedias with valid references and cultural context. Therefore, it is not a personal essay or a subjective opinion, but the encyclopedic transposition of a documented ethnological concept.

The arguments that have been put forward to justify the deletion — such as that it is "a personal essay with vagueness" or that it contains expressions such as "captured skins" — are minor drafting problems that can be easily corrected (WP:GOCE, WP:FIXABLE). The fact that the translation is not perfect does not invalidate the content or its notability (WP:N), especially if it comes from an already accepted encyclopedic source in other languages.

In addition, the article maintains a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), describing a traditional hunting practice for ethnological purposes, without glorifying or condemning it. The term "captured skins" can be revised for a more precise expression in English, but it does not alter the informative value of the text.

Deleting the article due to translation errors would be contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, which promotes the improvement of content and not its deletion due to correctable formal defects. Instead of deleting it, a linguistic revision should be proposed and the English version should be kept as part of the global body of knowledge on traditional hunting practices. Mcapdevila (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are justifying this crap by pointing out that other crap exists? Qwirkle (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you define, not me, "because other crap exists" in the "discussion page" of the article, it is only one among the other five reasons I've presented for keeping the article, on the other hand, I would like to remind you that, according to Wikipedia policies, the use of terms such as "crap" to refer to an article or the work of another editor goes against the rules of courtesy and mutual respect. Specifically, this violates:

WP:CIVIL – which calls for civilized and respectful behavior among editors.

WP:NPA – which prohibits personal attacks, including indirect disqualifications.

WP:AGF – which urges to presume good faith in the contributions of others.

If there are aspects that can be improved in the article, I am totally open to reviewing them (WP:FIXABLE), but disqualifying it calling it "crap" does not contribute to the collaborative improvement that Wikipedia promotes.

In addition, it should be noted that I have committed to do"within seven days" enough copyedit for the article to be acceptable.

I would appreciate it if the debate could be focused on content and not on "unpolite expressions". Thank you

Mcapdevila (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

_After reading and verifying the article, I can prove that more than a 50% of the article is taken from the corresponding articles in the English Wikipedia, besides, the first argument "bad english".. used to justify the deletion, becomes weak, an the 2nd => —the trapper's cache is only a small part of the tools he uses, such as a shovel— is a weak argument considering the ethnological and military context of a more global article.

In order to give a more global change of orientation to the article. I have incorporated information translated from the French version, which clearly explains the use of the cache in a military context.

I have changed the title to the more generic Cache (hideout), to better follow Wikipedia policies WP:TITLE – Recommends clear, concise and recognizable titles for most readers. WP:PRECISION – The title should be specific enough to avoid ambiguity, but not so technical that it excludes the general public.WP:COMMONNAME – It is recommended to use the most common and understandable name in English, which in this case would be Cache (hideout).Thus the main arguments for deletion disappear, thus the deletion tag can be removed.--Zyang (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you that by renaiming to "hideout" alone would cover all the cases with the exception of Computer cache, but this was the reson to create the article, after Bob Bemer HIS, Phonix, Az, has explained us in a computer lecture, that the trapper's cache was the origine of Computer's cache.. Mcapdevila (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The buried cache is as deep as a crouching man standing upright.

You don't say. —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]