I've noticed a number of old questions that have resurfaced as active due to edits either to the questions or to answers. Many of them don't meet the contemporary criteria for on-topic questions as they fail to present a notable claim. I don't know when the current notability criterion was introduced, but it seems clear to me that it wasn't enforced in 2011. Here are a few examples that became active over the last ten days for illustration:
"Does one shake hands with 6 men/11 women per year who have recently masturbated and not washed their hands?" – based on a single post on an online forum (posted Dec 10, 2011; last edit to question Apr 23, 2022)
"Does gender affect driving skill?" – no source for the claim (posted Mar 31, 2011; last edit to question Apr 20, 2022)
"Meditation - Is it just spiritual practice or something more?" – no falsifiable claim; no source given (posted Mar 16, 2011; last edit to answer Apr 20, 2022)
"Is pain tolerance lower in the morning?" – based on anecdotal evidence; no source given (posted Jun 3, 2011; new answer Apr 17, 2022)
"Does telepathy exist?" – no source for the claim (posted Mar 5, 2011; last edit to answer Apr 14, 2022)
I was tempted to Vote to Close for several of them until I realized that they were basically historical artifacts, so I decided to ignore them. But as it is, they remain on the list of active questions unchallenged, often with very high views and votes. As such, they may serve as bad examples to users unfamiliar with skeptics.SE's rather strict posting rules. Or more explicitly, as @JoeW emphasized in a comment to this question:
A problem with leaving them open is newer users can find them and use them as examples of good questions.
@Oddthinking commented in as an answer to a related meta question that
Sometimes an old answer will come to my attention - someone has flagged it, or someone has posted a newer answer which brings the old answer in front of our eyes, and it might get judged by the modern rules. (This arguably introduces a bias - that only offensive old answers get deleted or marked as requiring a reference, whereas inoffensive answers get by without. This is an argument for systematic clean up, rather than ad hoc.)
So, what is the right procedure? Should old questions like the examples above be flagged so that moderators can add a note that this is a historic question that doesn't meet today's standards? Should I cast a "Vote to Close" in the hope that enough users do the same? Should old questions just be ignored?