Can you give a definition of "noise" vs. "non-noise" topics that does not ultimately boil down to arbitrarily including some while excluding others?
I do not see a reason to limit the articles on concepts - on generic, abstract issues like an [[encyclopaedia]], a [[globe]], a [[screw]]. We can explain the concepts of every knowledge area.
The noise problem arises - in my experience - from articles on instances of these abstract classes. We can explain what a [[screw]] is, we should not explain what the [[left screw of the rear break of the bicycle of Uli Fuchs]] is, even if that would be a perfect neutral, controllable, information.
Of course there is a vast range in these articles of instances. All of us would agree that a description of the [[Mona Lisa]] belongs to an encyclopaedia, all of us would also agree that [[the first picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] and [[the second picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]] does not (I hope so).
What is the difference between the Mona Lisa and those private pictures? Actually the Mona Lisa is famous, its one of the most known pictures in the world. Ulis private pictures are not.
We all agree that [[Albert Einstein]] needs an article and that [[Uli Fuchs]] does not. Why? Because Einstein invented the relativity theory and Uli Fuchs didn't do anything really important at all (yet ;-)).
You can play this game with any of those "instance"-articles: Can you *write down a reason*, why that particular instance of a person (a book, an album, a place, a sex toy) is important (not just:distinct). If you can't - don't take it into an encyclopaedia. I would want that every new article on those instances either contains such a note or gets deleted: "Fairfield Camp: American camp on Sicily" - delete it. "Fairfield Camp: American camp on Sicily where the armistice between Italy and the Allied Forces was signed" - keep it. Simple as that.
Well, you know what they say... watt dem een sien Uhl, is dem annern sien Nachtigall. Just because you don't see the point in an article does not mean it's not worth having.
For what it's worth, I don't think stuff like "[[the first picture that Uli Fuchs took of his girlfriend while being in Munich in May 2004]]" is a good example, either - I think everyone (including those who envision Wikipedia and its sister projects to become a collection of all human knowledge) will agree that this is not encyclopedic, but then, last time I checked, that article (as well as the other examples you give) don't exist, anyway.
FWIW, there already is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wikipedia_is_not, which lists some things that are not appropriate for Wikipedia, and (maybe of even more interest) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Quantity...
Lastly, if you think an article does not deserve an entry on Wikipedia, you can always list it on VfD, and if others agree with you, it will get deleted. And if they don't... well, such is life; nobody's perfect. Maybe you should reconsider the article in question then.