However, I choose to look at it as a benefit rather than a negative. A subject that is not well known is more likely to be vandalized over time then expanded by editors.
A specialized wiki that has a sense of ownership from its editor will be far more successful at preventing long-term vandalism and neglect.
(It's easy to be cynical and say "good! If admins have to invest 3 or 4 hours on each article they delete, then Wikipedia will be better for't", but really, most articles on AfD deserve to be deleted and asking 3 or 4 hours of each admin per AfD is a good way to destroy Wikipedia.)
YMMV. The definition of democracy is probably worth a thread in its own right. However, regardless of whatever label we each choose to call those policies, we're in accord that those policies are generally well-designed.
This seems like one of those AfD's that will either hold back a flood of other articles, or open the floodgates. It looks to me like the process is working, but I've only read 4 minutes worth of the discussion.
In 2010AD, the Wikilawyers have amassed a large amount of evidence that the Wikicritics lack: an actual encyclopedia that, despite virtually owning the front page of Google, has not been gamed into irrelevance.
I take that evidence into account, and the amount of effort WP volunteers clearly put into the project, and come to the conclusion that they should get a whole hell of a lot more slack than they appear to get on fora like this.
So in short, whenever wikipedia choose to write about something, they dominate. Whenever they choose not to write about, a niche wiki filled it.