Need thousands of new major articles

There are thousands of important articles needed in all Wikipedias. It is a bizarre illusion that Wikipedia is "full-up" with only trivial topics needed. For instance, I recently wrote "en:United Nations ambassador" because it did not exist at all (after 10 years of Wikipedia articles!). Someone had even claimed, "The term 'UN ambassador' is an erroneous title" (not true), when the U.S. has had UN ambassadors for decades, perhaps since 1945, and has even listed them by name on their U.S. UN-mission website (see article I recently wrote: "en:United States Mission to the United Nations"), and we need "en:French Mission to the United Nations" (etc.). The hollow coverage of the UN is so limited, that even some UN organizations or councils are not defined, beyond en:UNESCO and such. Also consider how shallow most articles have been: in about 10,000 film articles, the en:cinematography, filming location, and music soundtrack are not yet described, despite thousands of film soundtracks having been nominated for outstanding musical compositions. Many major magazines or scientific journals need articles. A key litmus-test article has been "en:List of Roman nomina" to show how a third of the 170 most famous families of the ancient Roman empire have few articles, after 10 years of work, including en:Laetorius, en:Lucius and en:Maximius. It appears that the other-language wikipedias are written mostly by young people, so article translations are needed to provide the basic details in other languages. We need thousands of major articles: many thousands. -Wikid77 21:29, 13 March 2011

• Update: Today, I added article "en:Marketing brochure" which had never existed (after 10 years!). In general, the English WP coverage of business terminology has been very limited, with many articles just a hollow introduction to a common business term. Also, many financial calculations are still not defined, such as for "en:Joint credit life insurance". -Wikid77 00:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Our coverage of the decorative arts is also very spotty and inadequate, as are the arts of Asia and Africa.

Our coverage of Africa is spotty, period. Not due to systemic bias of contributor (at least for the most part -- see the recent controversy over Makmende), but due to lack of information. To write the articles I have on Ethiopia, I've been forced to acquire several dozen books on the country, & some days I'm convinced -- not out of egotism -- that I have a a larger collection on Somalia than my local public library has -- three books.

Yes, there are other ways to find the information than one's local university & public libraries, but in the end one can only write articles on topics one can find information.

Yup. In almost every area, we need dozens of articles that anyone who knows the field can name off the top of their head. For those who can't, there are redlinks. (Although I started out thinking a redlink meant it had been deleted and shouldn't be re-created!) We also have an appalling number of one-line stubs. The problem is all the worse outside en.wikipedia, because it's so much larger. It's simply not true that we're near the useful limit of articles, or even that the missing articles are hard to find info on.

It would be good to have lists of needed articles, which are guaranteed to satisfy notability requirements. Then somehow, suggest to new users who are trying to create new articles for the first time, that they start with a topic which is guaranteed to be notable and have good references available to use. When new users pick their own topics to write about, they often overlook the "needed" articles and pick something of marginal notability which requires far more editing skill to make deletion-proof.

Wikipedia may not be "filling up" with things we could have articles about, but it may be filling up with things that unaided new users would guess to write about that will stick.

We could also have articles about every single grid-connected electrical generating plant in the world. As far as I can tell, they are all notable enough. But not many people are interested in writing about many of them.