On 2/6/13, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Notability is *supposed* to be timeless, not perishable, let's recall.
Yeah. But that is a bit of a canard in some cases. It is a question of whether coverage endures and continues or peters out. i.e. Whether people/sources (the right sort) write about something over time, and in what manner. Coverage of something when it starts is very different to coverage after it is gone. The former is news, the latter starts to become history (whether a footnote or not). > Pownce is clearly a footnote by now. One of WP's purposes is to host > such footnotes. So the writing issue boils down to reducing froth to > footnote coverage. Ultimately everything becomes a footnote if you take the long view. With some things being more a footnote than others. Getting the balance right as something goes from having lots of coverage at inception, to either increasing or decreasing coverage thereafter is tricky, but an important consideration. It is something that I don't think those engaged in debates about notability consider enough, especially when considering that living people get coverage because they are living. Whether they get coverage when or after they are dead (which we won't know until that happens) *should* be a consideration, but often isn't. Sometimes when something comes to en end, new coverage will prompt updates here, but sometimes even that doesn't happen. It all results in a large mass of articles that are poorly maintained and look increasingly out of date as time goes by. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
