The article correctly advices against commenting the obvious. I think it is often practice by novice programmers to assure themselves about what the language expression actually does.
What the article omits is the suggestion of commenting the right way, i.e. adding reasoning or the description of the high level logic behind the code.
Yes, obviously the examples given in the link are bad style of comments. But sometimes you need to explain the reasons behind the (Haskell) equations, just like one would do in a Math paper. So there's a use case for the literate Haskell files *.lhs (http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Literate_programming).
What the article omits is the suggestion of commenting the right way, i.e. adding reasoning or the description of the high level logic behind the code.