Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preservation Issues

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 of the debate was KEEP and rename. I've moved it to Media preservation as this best describes what the article is going for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preservation Issues

Reads more like a magazine article for scrapbookers than an encyclopedia article. Some sort of article about preserving documents and such would be welcome, but this isn't it. tregoweth 22:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Preservation is a growing issue. With natural and man made disasters left right and center, as well as changing technology (making digital material obsolete), preservation of photographs, documents and other cultural items should be very important to everyone. An informative encyclopedia article on this topic would be very welcome.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.115.191 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC).
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Transwiki to Wikibooks; Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Relisting. I am not comfortable deleting the article based on just two opinions, especially when there is a dissenting voice, albeit anonymous, and it is not completely obvious to me that the article should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to fix capitalization. And it reads like it's copy/pasted from a book, could someone check for copyvio please? Other than that, tag for cleanup, scrap the obvious to-do sections and keep. Radiant_>|< 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The content of this page was largely copied from this site http://www.yourliferemembered.com/ (tab general info/preservation issues). That page has a "permission to copy blurb" reading "This article maybe freely copied, modified and reprinted....just give credit to this site and where possible provide a link back to this site."FRS 19:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Worthwhile information, I think. Wikipedia already has articles on Art conservation and restoration and Film preservation. There may be more info somewhere on preservation of old paper documents, but I couldn’t find it at the moment. I don’t particularly like this title “Preservation Issues” but I can’t think what else to call it. Agree with Radiant that the title needs to be fixed for capitalization. ♠DanMS 01:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Smerge (merge the most useful information, without the how-to stuff) to archive. Preservation Issues is not a meaningful name for what this article is about. Chick Bowen 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per DanMS. I couldn't agree more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a useful article. Needs a new title, I agree. Devotchka 02:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. Could be merged with Digital preservation.. frankh 10:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep and cleanup, as per Radiant! AJR | Talk 13:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment The title of this article bothers me because it seems loosey goosey; "Preservation Issues" is too broad. Do I think that this conceptually need on Wikipedia? Most certainly. But preservation issues takes in too many fields that are simular and dissimular at the same time. Document archival techniques are different than restoration techniques on fine art. There is a clear difference between a "historical renovation" and a full blown Restoration of buildings. So if the article is to survive, I feel that it would be most useful in as a hub to the topics (spokes), so to speak. Stu 14:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge: Preservation has links to all of the types of preservation, why not just make sure that every category is covered and let the preservation article serve as a hub? It looks like we need a paper document preservation article, at the least, so we could use the content from this article as a starting point, as it needs to be rewritten. If you don't want to use the preservation article as the hub, and want the title to be more specific, I would suggest "historical record preservation", "document preservation", "archive preservation" or working it into the archive article somehow. Finally, we should make sure that the articles we already have cover everything mentioned in this article. -- Kjkolb 16:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Comment- I went ahead and started an article for Archival science since its a disclipline and it wasn't dealt with in the article archive Stu 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. I'm not sure what's useful in this article: it doesn't say anything more than "paper fades, hard disks crash, and you won't be able to read your CDs in 30 years even if they don't rot before then". Where's the useful information here? If it described actual real preservation techniques, I'd say "keep" without a second thought - but it doesn't. — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly move to Wikibooks...it almost reads like instructions on how to preserve certain items rather than information on the phenomenon of document preservation. Either way, it needs to be edited so it's not written in second-person. Kurt Weber 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. It sounds more like an instruction manual than an encyclopedia article. No need to fix it up when it would already fit perfectly over there. Karmafist 16:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I edited out the how-to stuff and left it a reasonably encyclopedic article. Note that it still has to be merged or renamed as above. Chick Bowen 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and retitle, or merge to Archival science. Certainly much work needed, but a good start. Denni☯ 02:53, 1 November 2005 (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.