Hoi, I really hate articles that try to pin down what should be done particularly because others then have to comply with what is proposed. For many of the arguments equally valid arguments can be brought that polarise the situation even more.. A good example is this "a decent size". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This means that it does not have to tell it all, it has to give a decent basis on the subject. There are however many articles that are truly long and it can be argued that they are no longer encyclopaedic it their outlook. The en:Gandhi article is one such. I would argue that your "decent sized" is no longer what you would call an encyclopaedic sized article. Making this article shorter could in turn create "problems" because some points of view might no longer find a place in the article. Another problem with "decent size" is that about some things there is not that much to say. Removing them from wikipedia is fine, if the notion of "bringing all the knowledge" is for what the Wikimedia Foundation intends to do and is not what Wikipedia is about. Decent sized would mean enough information is provided in my book and it would not be quantative in the way you use it. You assume that we have to comply with "the law" and consequently that there are things we cannot have articles about. I would like you to substantiate that. When things are publicly known, we may not use material because all kinds of IP restrictions but I doubt that we can not inform about it. When we do not want to report about people, it is a choise a choise that is as much about the peron involved being a public figure thant anything else. Remember in Wikipedia we create an encyclopaedia and the next moron shooting ducks in a school may be something for Wikinews but in the larger scheme of things it is a non-event. Your idea about what makes something encyclopaedic is indeed fuzzy. You start by excluding several categories of information and end your position paper with "I think the less popular something is the *more* useful it is to include information about it in Wikipedia". You cannot have it both ways. I would say that when something is sufficiently relevant it may be included. Starwars is very much fictional and it is very much relevant to our culture. In the same way I am happy to see that "the roman de la rose" has it's well deserved article. This was in it's day more popular than the bible (1). What is also "fuzzy" for me is what "human dignity" is about. Many people have done things that are extremely undignified and are of a relevance that inclusion in Wikipedia is the right thing to do.. Concluding, I take your pov as a discussion paper, and there is enough meat to chew on. Thanks, GerardM (1) Herfstij der Middeleeuwen - Johan Huizinga On 10/1/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: