Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the solution that Wikipedia themselves would advocate is that you should publish those explanations on some site of your own, and Wikipedia could then cite it The problem with "deletionism" is not lack of sources and citations. It's the fact some moderators don't want certain material there. Creating sources is not a guarantee you'll be able to add them back, quite the opposite. In the past I've seen purges of all…
My opinion is that it should be inclusionism and not deletionism. Include many thing as needing. > Actually, I've seen "the content is already available in another website, why do we need it here?" being be used as an argument against reinstating some very uncontroversial articles. Having it on Wikipedia is helpful. This way, you can find it in Wikipedia, can have a free license, mirrors (if there are any), can use M…
I agree with you, unfortunately we're losing the battle here.
There are already plenty of rules defining what fits or not in Wikipedia: not only it needs sources, but also notability and it can't be original research.
The issue is not that those rules aren't being followed: is that deletionist mods are deleting articles, metadata, lists, and everything else, even when those rules are followed. And they're also making it harder to create new articles.