There are actually many incredibly obscure articles that are created on Wikipedia which rightly deserve to be deleted for not meeting the pretty reasonable notability criteria.
There are also way too many articles with either no sources at all or with really crappy or biased sources. If the articles are obscure enough, they often never even get challenged or deleted. Many of those that do get challenged or deleted deserve to be.
The real problem comes in when articles which really are notable and information from sources which are credible get deleted for ideological, political, or other biased reasons (though, of course, the people doing the deletion will always claim otherwise). Wikipedia really has no good solution for this than letting the parties involved argue it out, or draw in more editors/admins (who have their own biases) in to the argument.
What usually emerges from these arguments is not "neutrality" or "objectivity", but rather a biased point of view of those people who managed to out-Wikilawyer, outnumber, or outlast the other side.
There are also way too many articles with either no sources at all or with really crappy or biased sources. If the articles are obscure enough, they often never even get challenged or deleted. Many of those that do get challenged or deleted deserve to be.
The real problem comes in when articles which really are notable and information from sources which are credible get deleted for ideological, political, or other biased reasons (though, of course, the people doing the deletion will always claim otherwise). Wikipedia really has no good solution for this than letting the parties involved argue it out, or draw in more editors/admins (who have their own biases) in to the argument.
What usually emerges from these arguments is not "neutrality" or "objectivity", but rather a biased point of view of those people who managed to out-Wikilawyer, outnumber, or outlast the other side.