Wikipedia:Topic creation

The question which topics we should create is related to, but definitely distinct from, the question of what naming conventions we should follow. I'd like to start a discussion about this. Here are some places to start:

Generally speaking, the creation of topics should be broadly encouraged. If anyone ever feels discouraged from creating a topic, it should be for a very good, clear, specific reason.
While there are many exceptions to this, in general, it is better to use a noun than an adjective. For example, conservatism as a topic is to be preferred to conservative (as an adjective). In a fully reticulated Wikipedia, though, we might want to use conservative (as a noun) for a general informational article on conservatives (i.e., the people called "conservatives"), as distinguished from the movement(s), conservatism, in which they participate. Similarly, we would prefer philosophy to philosophical. Of course, if one wanted to link "philosophical," that's easily done, like this: philosophical. The latter code will display like this: philosophical.
One issue that might constrain the choice of topics occurs when there are two or more names for the same topic. For example, "spam" and "spamming"; the first is a kind of e-mail or newsgroup post, and the second is the activity of sending or posting such messages. With such sets of closely-related topics, we have a number of choices:

Redirect from one topic to another; so, for example, make "spamming" redirect to "spam."
Make one page a very brief definition, followed by a pointer to the other page ("for more information, see spam").
Develop two separate articles.

There must be other issues. Discussion?

Another issue is that creating topics randomly might lead to collisions. Spam isn't first and foremost a type of post, it is a type of food that rumored to be made of compressed pigs. Thus spamming might be a better name since it has no such ambiguity. People should probably think a little about such things when creating new pages.