In order to answer this question, one needs, first, to be clear what this ‘classic’ sense of decimate is. It is not simply ‘reduce by 10%’. Reducing something by 10% is sometimes an improvement, and even when it is damaging, it often constitutes a minor, trivial, easily repairable damage to the thing in question. Nobody, however, uses decimate for actions whose effects are beneficial or trivially damaging to whatever we are talking about; it is always used for actions that are devastating to it. The ‘classic’ meaning, that some linguistic conservatives insist on, involves a comparison with the Roman punishment of decimating, which was far from being something trivial; it was a severe, drastic punishment. Now, it was essential to the Roman practice of decimating that it was a severe punishment of the whole of the military unit, by killing one tenth of its members; the expectation was that the surviving 90% would be profoundly affected by the punishment. The conservatives (traditionalists, purists) argue that the word should be reserved for the actions that are sufficiently analogous to this punishment, in that they profoundly affect the whole of something, by destroying only a part of it, where the part needn’t be exactly 10%, but should be substantially less than the whole.
Is the word decimate ever used in that sense in contemporary English? There certainly are situations that fit this sense of the word. Consider an earthquake that destroys approximately 10% of the buildings in a particular city. Chances are that such a tragedy would have devastating effects on the city as a whole, even though the remaining 90% of its buildings are left standing. The linguistic conservatives would say that in such a case it is perfectly correct to say that the city has been decimated by the earthquake.
However, when we hear somebody say ‘The city has been decimated by the earthquake’ it is usually impossible to know whether the person’s choice of the word decimate was guided by these considerations (which would mean that the word is used in the ‘classic’ sense), or merely by the fact that the effects of the earthquake were devastating (which would mean that it is used in the currently widespread, non-‘classic’ sense). The answer to the question is thus that the word is quite likely sometimes used in the ‘classic’ sense, but that it is, because of the considerable overlap between the two senses, difficult to be sure that it is so used in a particular case.