Exactly. What the Deletionists seem to miss is the extent to which their entire position is based on negativity, and how that negativity poisons the well for everybody. Imagine spending hours, or days, or weeks writing a detailed, well-documented, heavily-interlinked, high-quality page only to have it shot in the head in a Deletionist Driveby. Would you ever edit another Wikipedia page again after an experience like that?
Just because site X is not paying for user generated content, does not mean no people are being paid to generate content on site X.
Always follow the money.
No, we're all quite aware of that.
Something that isn't an article can still be very useful. EG Wikipedia has little to say about "Edmond Halley Sr." [sic; his name's Edmond Humphrey Halley], a father who proved critical to his son's success, and whose mysterious death complicated his son's life in multiple ways. I spent two hours online learning how and why (w/cites), but there's no room in the WP inn for publishing that summary.
Once again: space has nothing to do with the argument for Deletionism. It isn't an elaborate form of garbage collection and encyclopedia-compression. If you're going to argue against their position, you have to go read what it is. They're not hiding it; this may be the most elaborately, carefully documented policy on any major site on the Internet, and your argument doesn't engage with it at all.
I'm arguing for the addition of a new branch to which serious researchers might append their (cited) notes without all the additional labor needed to create a whole 'acceptable' article. (For all I care, they could even load them down with all the usual, tired caveats.)
This stuff can just go somewhere else online that's much harder to find. No skin off my ass if WP has no alternate mechanism to add serious, skilled research. (Compare to any great library....) Any WP user who wants more will, individually, have to put in the same 2 hours I did. Great solution.