>>> If readers continue to want to read about it, then it continues to be >>> notable, no? >> >> No, notablity was established by the amount of information published in >> significant reliable sources. Reader, and editor, interest is >> irrelevant. > > My bad. My comment was based on the apparently mistaken premise that > we were speaking English when using words such as "notable".
"Notable" is a term of art on Wikipedia defined by policy. As an English word it has a broader meaning. > >> However, we do need a mechanism for weeding out information which is no >> longer of interest to readers or editors. > > Why? Is it irrelevant, or is it relevant? It was relevant, or seemed to be, when published. It's kind of like the best selling fiction of 1924, of note, but probably not suitable for bedside reading in 2013. Time passes, priorities change; we could take the view that the article namespace should contain only material regarding which there is some minimum contemporary interest, as evidenced by at least occasional publishing of information about in in contemporary reliable sources. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
