When to mark an old link as retired instead of deleting it

Mark an old link as retired when it explains past context but should not guide current action.

Deleting an old link can make a record cleaner, but it can also erase why earlier wording existed. A user may ask why a checklist once recommended a setup step, why a comparison table had a different limit, or why an answer mentions a feature that is no longer available. If the source is removed entirely, the history becomes harder to audit.

Retirement is the better option when the link was once useful and now has a replacement, contradiction, redirect, or obvious freshness problem. The note should say why it is retired: replaced by a newer help page, contradicted by current policy, no longer available, archived only, or too old for current decisions. If a replacement exists, put it next to the retired link.

Do not retire a source just because it is old. Some historical, legal, academic, or standards material remains useful for years. The key question is whether a reader might treat the old source as current evidence and make a wrong decision. If yes, retirement is clearer than silent deletion.

A useful retired-link pattern is: old source, retired reason, replacement source, date noticed, and affected note. This gives future readers enough context to understand the change without reopening the entire research path.

The practical goal is to preserve memory without letting stale evidence keep working in the background.

When to mark an old link as retired instead of deleting it

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE