Greetings!
My name is Bill, and I am an intermittent Wikipedian.
In the Wikipedian spectrum, I would tend towards the Inclusionist rather than Exclusionist / Deletionist camp, but with one proviso: where something has been included that cannot be strongly sourced (i.e. as it adds to the understanding of the topic, because that is actually what the "consumers" of the "product" want, I suspect!), the old Journalistic axiom to "distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact" should be rigorously followed ...
The Wikipedia concept of Discussion pages clearly caters for the "Comment" element, but conjecture is not so fortunate, and I note the removal of conjecture assumed to be inserted with good intent by some Wikipedians by the Exclusionist / Deletionist camp is a source of heated exchanges.
I, for one, would welcome the introduction of generic approach to attaching Speculative / Unreferencable material into Wikipedia so it can be easily found by grazers: either by an inline tag such as <speculative> around items which applied either an easily distinguishable formatting to such elements, or a dedicated Section, or an additional linked page like the Discussion pages.
The pages I consciously edit tend to be in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) field, and/or related to and projects I have worked with over the years (including several well known UK companies in the ICT, Aviation and Broadcast spaces).
But you may have come across me doing some minor editing to one of your articles because I've seen it when looking something up, and typically have edited as I spotted a need for cleanup of some sort. As such articles will tend to be ones in which I have no particular expertise, apologies if I accidentally skew the meaning in trying to effect cleanup!
BillM