>I often find myself clicking on the Dutch translation link - it regularly has more concise, useful data.
For content that you care about, perhaps. Not for the content that they use to raise the article count number. The latter is mostly made up of one to two sentence articles scraped from foreign Wikipedias. Oftentimes they're articles about towns in remote countries.
Here's an example of such an article created by a bot
The existence of those pages has no disadvantage and does not detract from the quality of the encyclopedia (if correct) - wikipedia itself points out that it is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no limit to the amount of content.
I do not understand the disadvantage of listing Abitanti and providing its location within Slovenia.
My point was regarding the usage of bots to scrape that content and adding it to a specific Wikipedia in an attempt to boost the article count, as has been happening on certain Wikipedias. The article that you linked to was created by an actual user.
For example, there were tens of thousands of articles created by bots on the Dutch Wikipedia, within a day, around the time when it was about to surpass the German Wikipedia. I don't consider that to be something appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's really difficult to find any alternative explanation for such acts, other than "we wanted to be ahead of that other Wikipedia in article count".
>and there is no limit to the amount of content.
WP:Stub would make it seem that it's at least not endorsed and that there's an expectation of having such articles expanded. But these don't get marked as stub, because there's no expectation of them having more content, just a mere increase on the article counter.
One huge problem with deleting or eliminating geographic records, is sooner or later something will happen there and its "a lot of work" to reinstate, especially if it was deleted by the deletionist jerks.
For example, a couple years back a dude went nuts and shot several northern WI hunters for no apparent reason. Not in Reeve but somewhere up there. Screwing around with wiki to make it harder to use and contain less information (why?) merely makes it harder to add actual real news when it later happens.
Deleting today creates a pointless load dragging down the future when it inevitably becomes notorious. Boring individual human beings might fade into obscurity, but geographic locales will inevitably "someday" be front page news for some crazy reason or another. Reeve WI will someday have its name up in lights. Maybe not today, maybe not this century...
Maybe it's just not the kind of contents I expect to find in wikipedia, and as such is just click-bait since it's likely to be high in google search results?
If I want to know the location of Abianti within Slovenia I'm more likely to turn towards some mapping website rather than wikipedia, where I'd expect a more detailed description of the city's history and other relevant information.
Many wikipedia articles have geolocations, so you're only one click away from a OSM map of the location.
And any Dutch travellers in that region will get an article about local towns suggested on their smart phones.
Finally, the wiki data project should soon (if not already) allow changes to data like population propagate from one language page to all the different versions.
In short, don't think small with wikipedia, it can be better than any Encyclopaedia in existence, possibly better than many can even imagine.
In this case, Abianti is a town (if you can call it that!) of 12 inhabitants. It's quite likely that there's no significant recorded history to it outside the heads of the dozen people living there.
For content that you care about, perhaps. Not for the content that they use to raise the article count number. The latter is mostly made up of one to two sentence articles scraped from foreign Wikipedias. Oftentimes they're articles about towns in remote countries.
Here's an example of such an article created by a bot
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abitanti