I find this view strange, and if it is a common opinion among experienced Wikipedians, then that makes me very worried about the state of the community. First about the idea of "creating work": If our goal is to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, then the work of writing those articles was always there. Creating stubs just makes it visible. Second, Wikipedia is nowhere near finished in terms of number of articles. Take a look at this image and tell me if geographical locations are well covered throughout the world: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imageworld-artphp3.png There is also a huge number of historical people with no articles. Whole academic subjects such as philosophy are barely covered and not very well written. Events before 2001 that aren't frequently referenced today is not nearly as well covered as recent events. Sure, the subjects the average Wikipedia writer is likely to look up are well covered. My favorite subject areas were actually quite well covered already in 2004. There is an article on pretty much every American town, film, band, athlete etc, but as soon as you go outside North America, Europe, Japan and Australia it gets a lot more sparse. I cannot find the link right now, but I have seen estimates that the total number of notable subjects is at least 10 million, probably closer to 100 million. Now if this was just your personal opinion it wouldn't be a problem, but the meme that Wikipedia has enough articles affects processes and community standards. When I complain that it has become too difficult for a newbie to create a new article, I am met with replies along the lines of "It helps keep the crap out, and we don't need more articles anyway". If people who start new articles are considered as troublemakers, then all those millions of missing topics will never be covered.