Adrian wrote:
Stan, in theory, you're right. In practice, I see a tendency to the opposite. Take a look at the SA link, in case you don't know it yet. It's an old story, but the examples of article pairs, although many of them are chosen tongue-in-cheek, speak for themselves.
"Wikigroaning" is somewhat amusing, but as a serious criticism it's hopelessly fallacious. You can't just compare the byte count of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number and the byte count of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime and expect to get a meaningful comparison of Wikipedia's coverage of those topics. When a Wikipedia article reaches a certain size or level of detail sections get split out into other articles that are focused on narrower sub-topics; a more meaningful comparison is the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prime_numbers. If all of Wikipedia's coverage of prime numbers were merged into one article it would be monsterously huge and unwieldy.
In any event, when one finds a situation where one topic has lots of coverage and another topic has less but one feels should have more, I don't believe the appropriate solution is to delete stuff from the first topic until they're even. The solution should be to _add_ stuff to the second topic.