Old work keeps speaking after its context disappears.
A screenshot can preserve a UI you would not ship now. A post can use vocabulary you have outgrown. A demo can break when its API moves. A link can lead nowhere. That does not make the work fake. It makes the artifact old.
Context is maintenance. Label prototypes, class assignments, early work, and reactions to a particular moment. That gives readers a fair way to interpret them.
Deletion is maintenance too. Some work belongs in an archive, some needs a note, and some should leave because it no longer represents current judgment. The useful question is not whether the author is still proud. It is whether the artifact still helps the site tell the truth.
Broken demos need a decision: fix them, replace them with a still image or video, or archive them with an explanation. A broken demo asks the reader to do guesswork.
Writing needs the same review. Mark historical pieces, update claims that changed, and link forward when a conclusion has moved. The worst state is a reaction to one narrow moment presented as timeless.
Scheduled pruning can stay simple: review the front page, resume links, case studies, screenshots, dead links, and claims that need dates. An archive can be honest without letting stale artifacts speak louder than current work.
Related posts
About Jeremy London
Engineering leader and builder in Denver. I write about AI platforms, agents, security, reliability, homelab infrastructure, and the parts of engineering work that have to survive production.