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