This is not why this happens on Wikipedia; sourcing is a factor, but notability derived from the nature and quality of the cited sources is the most commonly used criteria to delete articles.
For example, Wikipedia once had a notability guideline that a person who completed in a sport at the international level was probably notable, so a weakly sourced article on, say, a footballer with a single international cap could be notable enough to avoid deletion.
But then editors removed this guideline and fell back onto the general notability guideline (GNG), which is much stricter for people: substantial biographical coverage from reliable mainstream sources at the national level. Match reports don't count (too routine), no local interviews (too primary), no enthusiast publications (not reliable enough), etc.
Of course, this meant that hundreds of stubs and dozens of full articles about women's international footballers would never meet GNG due to a relative lack of mainstream media coverage, even if they won a World Cup. So all it took was one editor to decide to do almost nothing but flag hundreds such articles since the opening of the Women's World Cup this summer, almost all of which were deleted.
So it's not this reason that keeps moths and places:
> On the other hand, no-one has yet come up with a way to monetize a topic like Pseudoneuroterus mazandarani or use it to push a contentious point of view.
But rather, very different standards of notability are why there are more low-traffic articles on items and places that can't sue Wikipedia editors for libel.