Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup
 | This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia users. Essays may represent common ideas, or ideas that many users would not support. They are not rules. Think carefully about what they say before following them. |
 | This page in a nutshell: If an article is bad enough, sending an article to RfD is sometimes a good idea. |
It is very common that an article is so bad that Wikipedia is better of without the article. This includes having articles with false information, pertaining almost entirely of complex english or otherwise. If one sees such a bad article, sending it to RfD can be a good idea. The phrase "deletion is not cleanup" implies that they are just going to let the article be a nuisance to the community and people will most likely not do something about it. One can tag these articles. Tagging the article can help the article become a better article, but they will usually just rot in its own article-purgatory.
The biggest criticism of Wikipedia is the quality of work. If there is an article that is actively hurting the community, eg., it contains false mostly information or it is generally awful, then there is no reason to have the article it unless it is recreated. This includes lacking any citations.
The threat of deletion, however, usually results in cleanup being done and work being made to fix it.
A user, however, should be sure to check to see if it was nominated for deletion before. They should also check if there is a place in time where the article was good, in which they should restore it.