Crap articles
Yes, and there are examples of legitimate content and non-crap stub articles being deleted because the person didn't cite sources, or it's a stub. In the old days this content would be marked as [citation needed], or marked as a stub. This leaves around content that others see as needing citation or being a stub and it entices them to make it better.
Yes, certainly there are examples of that, but you seemed to be saying that deletion is always bad because it removes information that could have been improved. People often say that who do not know what the actual new page list of an anyone-can-edit site looks like. My point was to illustrate that many new "articles" are not amenable to improvement, and those are the "crap articles" people were talking about.
