> How would you know about a paper you don't have and doesn't have any cites and is 50 years old?
Google Scholar?
> How can a paper be perennial if it doesn't have any cites?
It was a bit exaggerated. But _in mathematics_ typical span of citation accumulation is decades, not years. And typical total citation count is way lower than in, say, biology.
> A paper being perennial is, I'd argue, defined by getting cites on a regular basis even after many years.
"But _in mathematics_ typical span of citation accumulation is decades, not years. And typical total citation count is way lower than in, say, biology."
Sure, I'll accept that. My point is that some people must have it apart from the archives of the university it was first published at. Again, I'm talking about the actual, practical issues here, not the "what might happen". Not to turn this into an ad hominem, but are you an academic? How often do you have real problems (as opposed to 'annoyed because I have to spend 15 minutes') finding the content of papers?
By that definition, anything written is perennial. In the context of a book/movie/paper being 'perennial', 'perennial' means 'still after a relatively long amount of time enjoys some form of popularity or following'. Just because a dictionary doesn't define it into that nuance, doesn't make it not true.
Google Scholar?
> How can a paper be perennial if it doesn't have any cites?
It was a bit exaggerated. But _in mathematics_ typical span of citation accumulation is decades, not years. And typical total citation count is way lower than in, say, biology.
> A paper being perennial is, I'd argue, defined by getting cites on a regular basis even after many years.
No. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perennial
Don't confuse it with "popular" or even "with lasting popularity".
Again, in mathematics things (almost) do not age...