Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital perpetuation


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Digital perpetuation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD; non-notable neologism that the creator admitted to coining in a previously deleted version. § FreeRangeFrog croak 07:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly Speedy Delete as A11. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Multiple searches found no significant evidence to suggest this word is widely used. SwisterTwister   talk  18:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above. Seahorseruler  (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless content fork of Digital preservation/Digital continuity. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One contributor posted her opinion on the individual talk pages instead of here, this was "my" copy (now removed) for info:

I am trying to figure out why this would be marked for deletion. In all things new such as the speed for technology today we will see changes in traditional concepts and new ones evolving.

The internet-of-things will impact and change business models and one of the most important going forward will be protecting digital data assets. Traditional recordkeeping and library, archive methodologies for 'preservation' do not cater and will not be suitable for digital data asset management. Whilst the concept and term of digital perpetuation is only just evolving one could same the same for a lot of new terms. Why is it that you have such a problem with this word and its objective for differentiation and clarification.

Even if you delete this the term will not go away. It is already out there in publication on professional website libraries and will be available in the Queensland archives shortly. Therefore whilst it is not prominent now like all new evolutions so is there the introduction to new terms of reference it takes time and one would had thought that the wikipedia was a progressive environment and keen to be seen to staying in touch technology and the changing global environment.

Thank you for your time. Linda Shave
 * Please add answers here, six discussions instead of one make no sense. Back on topic, apparently your statement confirms WP:NEO per nom, adds WP:CRYSTAL as another reason for a deletion, and does not address WP:CFORK. Click on the pseudo-geek terms, they are harmless shortcuts for established rules here. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.