Wikipedians have been arguing over these positions for many years, so if you want to see the arguments in favor of deletionism, there are plenty of places to lo

Wikipedians have been arguing over these positions for many years, so if you want to see the arguments in favor of deletionism, there are plenty of places to look. For example, here are IMO the most salient points from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism: > Some believe that the presence of uninformative articles damage the project's usefulness and credibility, particularly when casual visitors encounter them through Internet search engines or Wikipedia's "random page" or "recent changes." > Articles on obscure topics, even if they are in principle verifiable, tend to be very difficult to verify. Usually, the more obscure, the harder to verify. Actually verifying such articles, or sorting out verifiable facts from exaggeration and fiction, takes a great deal of time. Not verifying them opens the door to fiction and advertising. This also leads to a de facto collapse of the "no original research policy", which is one of the fundamental Wikipedia policies. Empirically, there have been a number of hoax articles which were difficult to prove to be hoaxes but which could have easily been deleted by a sufficiently strict notability policy. > Poorly-sourced articles can result in Citogenesis, as incorrect or unsourced information on Wiki (e.g., information that is the product of original research) is then repeated outside Wiki and eventually works its way into a publication that is normally regarded as a reliable source.