Steven Walling wrote:
...we just simply can't include every possible topic under the sun and still produce an accurate and reliable encyclopedia. Space is not the issue, quality is. The breadth has to stop somewhere, so we can get to depth.
You're welcome to that opinion, but please realize that's what it is, and it's not a majority opinion, either.
By and large, the only people who are hurt by stubby articles or by articles on allegedly non-notable subjects are the subset of Wikipedia editors who wring their hands over the constructed worry that these articles make us look less "serious".
To which I say, get over it. Our readers certainly don't care. They can and do ignore the articles they don't care about -- they might as well not be there. But to someone who *is* looking for information on a certain topic, an article on it -- no matter if it's stubby or less than exhaustively sourced -- is potentially just as useful as our most polished featured article.