that's entirely the problem being discussed here: there's a lot of things that shouldn't get deleted that nevertheless do, because there's a large number of wikipedia editors who feel a sense of accomplishment from deleting things.
Historically, that's not much protection for a short article. The Deletionists largely won the war, and plenty of acceptably-notable articles get tagged with "en-encyclopedic" or other bases.
This is like saying "well, our side lost 90,000 out of our 100,000 soldiers, but the fact that you can still find 10,000 soldiers on our side means the enemy didn't win!"
Depending on the objectives of the military engagement in question, the casualty count is not necessarily the determining factor when it comes to who "won" said engagement.
The point is: your article can get nuked at any moment unless your article is about a topic familiar to the Wiki Admin demographic OR unless it has a defender (a powerful enough Wiki Admin who will monitor and stand up for the article).
That gives me an idea. Wiki Admins should offer a paid service! Pay me monthly and I'll actively protect article(s) of your choosing from deletion or vandalism!
Yep, you captured the point I was going for here. It's not that all stubs and oddities are deleted, it's that if an article catches someone's eye the default decision is "delete".
That's almost worse, since the results are so haphazard. Outside of a few predictable topics (virtually all cities/towns get long-lasting stubs), Wikipedia is "comprehensive" only to the limits of "no one noticed, or someone powerful stepped up to defend it".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability