I'd argue something even worse than what you are positing. The folks who've stuck around and made contributing to WP nigh impossible are also the same who make strong statements about turning WP into what's essentially just a digital copy of a traditional encyclopedia, thus artificially constraining it in both breadth and depth even though the storage of the material (bits) is almost free, while the print cousins were constrained largely due to cost and physical size.
WP is free of both of those constraints so why are their legions of self-appointed bureaucrats trying to impose those constraints?
Because the articles have to be concise to be readable? For example I just stumbled into the article "Tinnitus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus) which contains a "list of notable individuals with tinnitus" (given that tinnitus is common, this is analogous to a list people who like the colour beige). Makes the (medical) article a bit longer, but crucially it fills the references sections with totally irrelevant links.
What would argue against making it its own article? Instead of deleting, these parts can just be separated- and storage is only getting more plentiful by the year.
WP is free of both of those constraints so why are their legions of self-appointed bureaucrats trying to impose those constraints?