Sooner or later you get down to billions of stub articles. I wrote a research paper once, it even got published in a fairly large journal. But I am not noteworthy and don't need an article on wikipedia. You need to have some lower bound to stop egomaniacs like me from writing our own 10k world biographies...
I don't really see how B's of stub articles hurt though. I don't even see them, if I'm not looking for them. Maybe if they share a name with a more note-worthy person, and then clutter search results for that person and cause confusion.
* Those pages have to be stored somewhere. They're all MB of space and they make DB tables longer and introduce other issues and generally clog up the rest of the site
* Those pages all have to be moderated (and who will moderate irrelevant pages), all open wikipedia to charges of copyright infringement, slander/liable and other issues
* Those pages distract from actual, useful pages. At best they actually distract from it, at worse they will actively contradict it
* It encourages people to edit wikipedia for the wrong reasons. We already have issues with politicians and CEOs editing wikipedia for personal gain.
* Privacy. I am not notable. There should not be an article about me, even though I have published research. The last thing I want is an article about me I then have to either correct or leave incorrect, that pops up when you google me. I have more than enough social media already thanks, the last thing I want is an "account" where I am not even in charge of what it says...
* Lack of sources. If you let in 1000 small articles, you have to allow articles with few to no sources. If you do that, you will get important or popular articles being created also with no sources. Banning non-noteworthy articles also bans un-sourced articles.
Your premise is fundamentally wrong, you DO see stub articles you aren't searching for, that's actually the BIGGEST issue with them. If you have articles literally nobody wants to read on wikipedia, eventually quite a number of people are going to navigate to them accidentally over the years, and get annoyed. The more useless articles they are, the worse and worse this issue becomes, because you can only index and filter SO well.
The second issue is that if you scale the amount of articles without scaling the amount of editors you reduce the overall quality of the articles. Quality is ensured by having more editors relative to the amount of articles, removing standards to increase the number of articles relative to the number of editors invariably degrades quality, meaning even when somebody DOES find the right article it's inevitably going to be of lower quality.
Just mindlessly adding information without standards isn't helpful, or useful, it's hoarding and it's corrosive. It has nothing to do with maintaining a useful body of knowledge for people to reference, it's a problem maintainers of a body of knowledge have to fight an eternal and ultimately losing war against for as long as they can.
Because the credibility of articles on wikipedia rests on having multiple editors. Having one (likley biased) writer for billions of entries means that most of the info on wikipedia would be false. It's better to have less info and be more accurate than become a glorified ad space.
